A fire at the official residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has ignited serious concerns regarding judicial integrity, culminating in a decision by the Supreme Court Collegium to transfer him back to the Allahabad High Court. This unprecedented situation arose last week when firefighters discovered a significant amount of unaccounted cash during their response to a fire at Justice Varma's residence.
The incident is particularly alarming given that Justice Varma was not home at the time. His family members, including his 82-year-old mother and daughter, alerted authorities when the fire broke out, and firefighters quickly extinguished the flames. However, during their investigation of the damage, the team stumbled upon a large cache of cash in one of the rooms, some of which was reportedly damaged by the fire.
Following this discovery, the situation escalated quickly. Police officials on-site immediately reported their findings to senior authorities, leading to the involvement of the Central Government. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna was informed of the gravity of the situation and swiftly convened a meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium to address the potential implications for the judiciary.
During the meeting that took place on March 21, members of the Collegium unanimously agreed on the necessity of transferring Justice Varma back to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court. Justice Varma had previously served there before his transfer to Delhi in October 2021. However, some Collegium members expressed that a mere transfer would not suffice to uphold the credibility of the judiciary. They argued for the need for stricter action, including a call for Justice Varma's resignation.
A source quoted by ThePrint remarked, "This is the prerogative of the CJI who has called for a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice on the incident. After going through the report, the CJI will take a call on the next step.” This statement emphasizes the weight of responsibility placed on the Chief Justice to ensure that appropriate actions are taken in light of these serious allegations.
The discussion about possible resignation stems from a broader concern over the integrity of the judicial system. Indeed, if Justice Varma refuses to resign, the Collegium has indicated that an in-house inquiry might be necessary. This internal investigation would typically include a Supreme Court judge's oversight along with two Chief Justices from High Courts to probe the allegations of wrongdoing.
Under procedures established in 1999 to address allegations against judges, the Chief Justice would first seek a response from the concerned judge regarding the allegations. Should the response not satisfactorily address the concerns raised, the CJI can then constitute a committee to delve deeper.
Justice Varma's career has seen him handle numerous significant cases since his appointment as an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court on October 13, 2014, and later taking oath as a Permanent Judge in February 2016. His tenure has included notable judgments, such as directing the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate to disclose official statements released to the media regarding investigations into the Delhi liquor policy case.
Yet, the discovery of cash highlights a troubling narrative. Some Collegium members were quoted expressing concerns about the events potentially tarnishing the reputation of the judiciary, stressing that the matter must be handled delicately to maintain public trust. “Members felt stricter action was required to avoid tarnishing the reputation of the judiciary,” stated NDTV.
As this situation continues to unfold, the call for accountability within the judiciary grows louder. The public's perception of law and order hinges significantly on the integrity of judges. Thus, it's critical for the Supreme Court Collegium and the Chief Justice to act transparently, ensuring that there are no shadows cast over the judicial process.
As the judicial system navigates these challenges, it serves as a critical moment for introspection and reform within the judiciary, reinforcing the principle that justice should not only be done but must also be seen to be done. This incident underscores the importance of safeguarding the reputation of the judiciary while also addressing any instances of wrongdoing decisively.
While transfers and inquiries are routine within the judicial framework, this case uniquely illustrates the intersection of judicial conduct and public perception. The findings from this inquiry will essentially set the tone for how similar allegations are treated moving forward, which will have lasting implications for the credibility of the legal system as a whole.
