The Centre on Friday notified Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma’s transfer to Allahabad High Court – his parent court, days after the Supreme Court collegium recommended the repatriation.
Justice Varma’s transfer comes amid the top court’s in-house three-member committee probe over the unaccounted cash found at his Delhi residence.
According to a Supreme Court press release issued on Friday evening, the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court for the time being has been asked not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma, when he assumes charge there.
Justice Varma’s transfer is the latest in the series of developments since Delhi firefighters—called to put out a fire—recovered cash in one of the rooms at the official residence.
A week after a fire at the judge’s residence led to the discovery of unaccounted cash, BOOM looks at the developments so far and what one can expect.
In-house inquiry on, not the right time to entertain pleas: SC
Even as the Supreme Court’s three-member in-house committee is probing the recovery of unaccounted cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence, there is a clamour of calls for an FIR against him.
The Supreme Court today dismissed advocate Mathews Nedumpara’s plea seeking an FIR against the high court judge. There are several options after the in-house committee submits its report, the top court said. “The Chief Justice of India can direct the registration of the FIR or refer the issue to the Parliament. Today it is not the time…the plea is premature,” the bench added before dismissing the matter.
However, Nedumpara is not alone in his call for an FIR. On March 27, representatives from six bar associations, with tacit support of 18 others, met with the Supreme Court collegium to protest Justice Varma’s repatriation to Allahabad High Court, and press their demand for a criminal investigation.
“The Bar Associations request the Chief Justice and the Collegium to withdraw the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma and to withdraw all administrative work in addition to the Judicial work which is already withdrawn,” the joint statement read. Allahabad High Court Bar Association President Anil Tiwari told the press that CJI Sanjiv Khanna gave his assurance that their demands would be considered but has “not promised anything”.
The unscheduled meeting—the seven representatives reached the Supreme Court unannounced hoping for a chance to meet the CJI—is a continuation of the outrage over unaccounted cash found on March 14 at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence.
Meanwhile, the three-member in-house committee comprising Chief Justices Sheel Nagu (Punjab & Haryana HC), GS Sandhawalia (Haryana High Court) and Karnataka High Court judge Anu Sivaraman and the Delhi Police continue their probe.
Even as the police gather evidence and secure CCTV footage from the official residence, media reports suggest the high court judge has been seeking legal counsel ahead of his meeting with the top court’s in-house committee probing the matter.
What happens next?
The question on everyone’s mind is what happens if a judge is accused of misdemeanor?
The answer lies in the Supreme Court’s in-house mechanism adopted in 1999. If a judge is accused of misconduct, the Chief Justice will first ascertain if the charges are serious or frivolous. If there is merit and the allegations need further scrutiny, the Chief Justice may constitute an in-house committee to probe the issue.
In Justice Varma’s case, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna considered Delhi High Court Chief Justice DK Upadhyay’s initial assessment of the issue in the aftermath of the cash being found and promptly constituted the in-house committee to probe the matter.
What happens if the judge is guilty of misconduct?
As the Supreme Court told advocate Mathews Nedumpara: “All options are open”.
If the in-house committee finds substance to the charges of judicial impropriety, it may recommend the removal of the judge, or suggest “minor corrective measures” depending on the seriousness of the issue.
In case the committee suggests the removal of the judge, the judge may first be asked to resign or retire voluntarily. If the judge refuses, the Chief Justice will then have to inform the President and the Prime Minister of the committee’s findings and initiate impeachment proceedings as per provisions of the Constitution.
A removal motion requires signatures of at least 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs for its admission. The motion then requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses. If passed, the President is then advised to fire the judge.
Till now, motions have been passed against a few judges, but no Supreme Court or High Court judge has ever been impeached.
Can an FIR be lodged against a judge?
According to the Supreme Court’s 1991 K. Veeraswami judgment, all judges are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In 1991, K. Veeraswami – a sitting chief justice of a high court at the time, moved Supreme Court in connection with a 1976 CBI case and chargesheet filed against him.
The 1991 K. Veeraswami said, “to adequately protect a judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President will consult the Chief Justice of India who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter. The President shall act in accordance with the advice given by the Chief Justice of India.”
“If the Chief Justice is of opinion that it is not a fit case for proceeding under the Act, the case shall not be registered,” it added.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Lokpal can probe high court judges. In February 2025, the Supreme Court stayed a Lokpal order which held that sitting judges of high courts established through Acts of Parliament fall under the purview of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Have judges been investigated for alleged crimes?
There are several examples of judges being probed for alleged crimes. In 2022, the Law Ministry told Lok Sabha that between 2017-2021, it had received 1,631 complaints of judicial corruption which it forwarded to the Chief Justice of India or Chief Justices of high courts.
To cite a few examples, in 2008, Rs 15 Lakhs cash was delivered at Punjab and Haryana High Court judge Nirmaljit Kaur’s residence in a case of mistaken identity. The money was meant for Justice Nirmal Yadav – her colleague.
Now, almost 17 years later, a CBI court in Chandigarh is slated to deliver its verdict on March 29.
In March 2003, the CBI found evidence that implicated Delhi High Court judge Shamit Mukherjee during while probing the staff of the Delhi Development Authority. An in-house committee found merit in the case and Justice Mukherjee was asked to resign. Subsequently, the CBI also got sanction from the Chief Justice of India and it charged Justice Mukherjee under the provisions of the anti-corruption act.
The 2017 medical college scam was quite a scandal for the judiciary for it involved at least two high court judges – IM Quddusi (Orissa High Court) and SN Shukla (Allahabad High Court).
The cases in all the above-mentioned matters are still pending.
In one of the most high-profile cases, in 2019 a supreme court staffer accused then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment. However, an in-house committee comprising three Supreme Court judges cleared CJI Gogoi of all charges.
Real judicial accountability near impossible: Report
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) report on judicial independence in India is quite damning. The report suggests that between 2014-2024, the Indian judiciary witnessed retrogressive developments in respect to its independence.
“The Indian judiciary has itself failed to provide for appropriate self-governance mechanisms and arrangements that ensure optimal accountability for the fair and independent administration of justice,” the report read.
“Removal of judges from office is contemplated under the Constitution, but the power to initiate removal or impeachment proceedings is vested with Parliament, which is inconsistent with international law principles that require the power of removal to be vested with an independent body composed of a majority of judges and not with either the legislature or executive,” it added.
The report said judicial accountability mechanisms in India are “insular and ineffective”, making “real accountability near impossible”. The ‘In-House Procedure’ developed by the Supreme Court to inquire into complaints against judges is not statutorily backed, the report pointed out.
