On Friday morning, media reports suggesting Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma was being transferred to his parent High Court - Allahabad High Court - under scurrilous circumstances, threw the legal community into frenzy.
Justice Varma is currently the third senior most judge at the Delhi High Court with a 22-year career as a lawyer, and a 10-year career as a High Court judge under his belt.
However, recent media reports which rocked the legal community stated that a huge pile of cash was discovered at the judge's residence when a fire brigade went to douse a fire that had broken out there.
The Collegium then decided to transfer him back to Allahabad though no official Collegium statement regarding the transfer has been released yet.
Members of the Bar brought up the issue before Dehi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyaya and requested him to take action. The Chief Justice said that judges are aware of the issue.
Amid these developments, Justice Varma went on leave for the day. This was announced by his staff at the Delhi High Court this morning.
It has now been confirmed that the top court has initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Varma and has sought a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice. The decision was made unanimously with all judges agreeing that the transfer is only the first step.
As part of the in-house inquiry, the CJI will constitute a three-member fact-finding committee of two Chief Justices from other High Courts and a High Court judge. The judge on the dock will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
By the afternoon, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, brought up the issue in the Rajya Sabha and requested the Chair, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar to give necessary directions to the government to come up with measures to increase judicial accountability.
Biography
Born on January 6, 1969 in Allahabad, Justice Varma secured his Bachelor's in Law degree from Rewa University, Madhya Pradesh and enrolled as an advocate in August, 1992.
He practiced primarily before the Allahabad High Court handling matters relating to constitutional, labour, and industrial legislations, corporate law, taxation, etc.
During this time, he held the office of the Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh from 2012 till August, 2013 when was designated as a Senior Advocate by the Court.
He also served as the Special Counsel for the Allahabad High Court from 2006 till his elevation as an additional judge of the High Court in October, 2014.
He was appointed a permanent judge in February 2016. After serving as a judge of the Allahabad High Court for over 5 years, Justice Varma was transferred to the Delhi High Court on October 11, 2021.
Important cases handled as judge
Income Tax reassessment proceedings against Indian National Congress: A Division Bench headed by Justice Varma dismissed several petitions moved by the Congress party opining that the IT Department prima facie had “substantial and concrete evidence” to further scrutinise the political party's income.
PayPal reporting entity obligation under PMLA: As a single-judge, Justice Varma held that online payment platform PayPal is a 'payment system operator' within the framework of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This means that PayPal will have to comply with Section 12 of the PMLA which makes it mandatory for a ‘reporting entity’ to maintain records of all transactions and verify and maintain the records of identities of all its clients for a period of ten years.
Powers of Enforcement Directorate (ED): Justice Varma held that ED does not have the power to investigate any offence other than money laundering and the agency cannot assume by itself that a predicate offence has been committed.
Media reporting of Delhi Excise Policy case: Justice Varma issued notice to Republic TV, India Today, Zee News and Times Now over their alleged misreporting of the trial in the Delhi Excise Policy Case and directed the news channels to ensure that all broadcasts on the matter are "in tune" with the "official press releases" issued by the CBI and ED.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act: Justice Varma held that disclosure of proposals and documents relied upon to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 45(1) of the UAPA can be exempt under Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act.
Judicial Bias: Justice Varma held that judicial bias in a case need not be proven as existing in fact but only needs to be tested from the viewpoint of an ordinary person and evaluated based on the test of reasonable apprehension.
What next?
A judge accused of corruption or misconduct can be impeached. While impeachment motions have been initiated a handful of times, no judge has yet been removed from office in that manner since the Constitution came into force.
Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution of India deal with the procedure to remove Supreme Court and High Court judges respectively from office. The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
The Constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the President based on a motion passed by a special majority of both house of Parliament. A special majority is a majority of the total membership of the house and a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting.
Recently, a motion to impeach Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court over his remarks against the Muslim community was submitted to the Rajya Sabha Secretary General.