Heading: The Supreme Court has cleared the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma to their Parent High Court.
The Supreme Court of India has given the formal order to transfer Justice Yashwant Varma into the Allahabad High Court (which was his parental court). This statement has been made to dismiss the term which has been speculated as “mis-information and rumors” related to the recent developments in this case.
Ever since this has come to light many people are worried and they are also looking with suspicion at the judgement given by Justice Yashwant Varma. People say that the judgement given by Justice Yashwant should be reviewed once again and if there are any biases seen in it then his judgement should be changed.
Background of the Case
The supreme court said that there is a spreading of mis-information and rumours regarding the incident at the residence of Justice Varma. Justice Yashwant is the incumbent second senior most judge of Delhi High Court and also has a membership in the collegium of this court.
Now he is proposed to be transferred to his parent court that is - Allahabad High Court where he would be ranked 9th in the seniority. The court stated that the transfer of judge is independent and on the other hand an “in house enquiry” will be conducted.
The Inquiry conducted a thorough research which looked after all the facts of the case then submits its report before the jury. The jury under this case will be examined by the Supreme Court Collegium which includes the Chief Justice of India and the four senior most judges of the supreme court. This was conducted on March 20, 2025.
Furthermore, Notice has been sent to the Consulting judges of the supreme court along with the chief justice of the concerned High Court and Justice Yashwant Verma himself. The court confirms that all responses received will be carefully examined and then after concluding in the quality resolution on the matter.
Recent Development
Justice Varma asked the questions over the transparency of the investigation. He said there are a lot of questions which are still un-answered. Some of these issue we gonna see below:
(1) Justice Verma was not given the chance to contribute to the evidence collection process, that witnesses were questioned without his presence, that he was given paraphrased statements rather than video recordings. Even though the video recording was available.
(2) The inquiry committee has not given any answer to any of the questions such as:
(3) Another question, whether the money was authentic, what caused the fire, and whether Justice Varma was responsible for the amount found in his house. All the questions were mentioned in the panel’s inquiry report which was concluded on March 15.
(4) Delhi HC judge - Justice DK Upadhyaya has given the inquiry report which was presented on March 21, 2025. It was suggested a "deeper study" into the claims. The decision was established with the three-judge fact-finding committee along with Justice D.K.
This is all about recent statements given by Justice Yashwant Varma, who is now serving at Allahabad high court. I want to stay updated with future legal stuff then subscribe to our blog it is completely free of cost.
The Judges' Inquiry Act
Recently, Justice Varma stated the parliament has a power to remove judges of high court and supreme court under article 218 and 124 respectively. The Supreme court's in-house investigation tried to seize the sole power of the parliament given under the constitution.
Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Justice Varma argued that the investigation must happen but this power lies with the parliament. The committee will have the complete authority to examine him and prove any misbehavior.
However, 'misbehavior must be proven' without any reasonable doubt - He said. The petition was filed with the anonymous name "XXX" but it can be seen as Judge of Allahabad High Court.
Notable Judicial Impeachment Cases?
1. Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): For the very first time, the impeachment process faced by the Supreme court justice V. Ramaswami. He gets impeached because of excessive spending (more than their salary).
He was found liable for the act but the impeachment failed because of the Congress restraint on voting (Lok Sabha). The Chief Justice was not providing the work to him, whereas he got all the benefits until retirement.
In 2011, there were two judges who faced impeachment during their posting:
2. Justice Soumitra Sen - The jury found the Calcutta HC Judge liable for the misappropriating “33.23 lakh” rupees. Voting for removal has been passed in Rajya Sabha while before completing the voting in Lok Sabha, He resigned from his post.
3. Justice P.D. Dinakaran - The Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court has faced multiple charges on him which shows the corruptness of this judge. The case underlines the accountability of the judges because many times they escaped through resignation of their office. Same happened, in this case before the completion of the investigation, On the first day of panel sitting gave his resignation.
4. Justice S.K. Gangele - The justice faces the sexual harassment accusations but later on the committee was found him innocent and cleared all the allegations against him.
Resignation by Judges
The practices of resignation by the judges when they catch-up with doing some phishing or illegal things. This loophole is a way for escaping uses by judges of our judicial system which we have to resolve. Before completing the investigation they resigned themselves and got the benefits of retirement.
They have double benefits from both sides - either investigation found them innocent or if they seem it is not possible then they resign their post. Whereas it is just opposite to the other government official whose accountability is not removed even after the resignation or leaving the office.
Conclusion
Justice Yashwant Varma Case is a turning point of Indian judicial history. After this story came out there were lots of questions raised by the people over the transparency and accountability of the judiciary. That our judicial system is responsible and justifiable as people say or this is also corrupt like other professions.
The judiciary has authority to self-regulate as well as constitutional impeachment procedures. Even though, current scenario is different for it because many current accountability flaws have arisen. Whatever the verdict, this case will probably influence future discussions on judicial accountability in India's democratic system.
