The Centre notified Friday the transfer of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma back to his parent High Court in Allahabad. He has been at the centre of a storm ever since cash was allegedly found at his New Delhi home during a fire on March 14.
“In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Shri Justice Yashwant Varma,” the notification stated.
Soon after the transfer order, the Supreme Court, in a press release, said “the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for the time being has been asked not to assign any judicial work to Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, when he assumes charge as a judge of the Allahabad High Court”.
Earlier in the day, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice A S Oka declined to entertain a plea seeking the filing of an FIR against Justice Varma, saying it was open to the CJI to direct the registration if necessary on completion of the in-house inquiry.
The bench told petitioner Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara, “…we have seen the prayers. After the in-house inquiry is over, several options are open. CJI can direct the register of the FIR or refer the matter to the Parliament after examining the report. Today it is not the time to consider this petition. After the in-house report, all options are open. The petition is premature.”
Nedumpara contended that the in-house committee could not carry out the investigation and that the police should do it. He also wondered why no seizure mahazar was drawn up to reflect the alleged discovery.
But the bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said this was not the stage to interfere and that he should wait until completion of the in-house inquiry.
Story continues below this ad
“Today, we cannot interfere at this stage. Let the in-house procedure be over, and after that, all options are open to the Chief Justice of India,” Justice Oka said.
Disposing of the plea, the bench said that “as far as grievance” regarding Justice Varma “is concerned, as can be seen from the website of the Supreme Court, in-house procedure is going on”.
“There will be several options open for the Chief Justice of India after the conclusion of the inquiry. Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this writ petition.”
“There are wider prayers against some of the decisions of this court seeking to read them down. At this stage, according to us, it is not necessary to go into that aspect. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of.”
Story continues below this ad
In the 1991 ruling in K Veeraswami Vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that prior approval of the Chief Justice of India is mandatory for registering a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against a sitting high court or Supreme Court judge.
The petition had challenged this. “The consequence of the aforesaid direction, that no FIR shall be filed, was certainly not present in the minds of the Hon’ble judges. The said direction creates a special class of privileged men/women, immune from the penal laws of the land. Our judges, except for a minority, and not a microscopic one, are men and women of the greatest of erudition, integrity, learning and independence. Judges do not commit crimes,” the plea stated.
Rekindles the debate
The row over the March 14 incident at the house of Justice Varma has rekindled the debate over the need for a body like the NJAC, cleared by Parliament in 2014, only to be struck down by the SC a year later. It has revived the charge of the Collegium system not being transparent on appointments to the higher judiciary.
“But incidents where judges are caught red-handed… cannot be denied. The judgment in K Veeraswami’s case, to the knowledge of the petitioners, has stood in the way of an FIR being registered even in an offence involving POCSO,” it stated.
In the Delhi High Court Friday, a litigant orally mentioned before Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya to issue directions suo motu for initiation of civil (tax) investigation against Justice Varma. CJ Upadhyaya told the litigant that he could file a petition, if he so wished.
Story continues below this ad
On March 22, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna set up a three-member committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma in the wake of the March 14 incident.
Nedumpara’s petition also questioned this and said only the police can investigate it. “The resolution of the Collegium investing the committee power to conduct such an investigation is rendered void ab initio inasmuch as the Collegium cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself to order so where the Parliament or the Constitution has conferred none,” it stated.