A fresh legal storm has erupted over the transfer and swearing-in of Justice Yashwant Varma, as a public interest litigation (PIL) seeks to halt his oath-taking at the Allahabad High Court. The petition, filed by advocate Vikash Chaturvedi through advocate Ashok Pandey, argues that the move is unconstitutional, given an ongoing in-house probe into allegations of unaccounted cash linked to Justice Varma.
The controversy stems from a fire at the judge’s residence on March 14, which inadvertently led to the discovery of allegedly illicit funds by firefighters. Reports suggest that Delhi’s Police Commissioner shared footage of the burnt cash with the High Court’s Chief Justice, triggering an internal investigation led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI). A three-member panel was soon formed to examine the matter.
Despite these developments, the central government notified Justice Varma’s transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court on March 28, following a recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium. However, the CJI directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice not to assign him any judicial work—raising the question of what purpose his oath would serve.
The PIL argues that a judge’s oath is inherently tied to their judicial responsibilities. If Justice Varma is to remain without case assignments, the swearing-in becomes a mere formality, undermining the sanctity of the constitutional process. The petition further asserts that judicial work cannot be denied to a sitting judge unless formally removed by presidential order.
Interestingly, the petitioner states that if Justice Varma is guaranteed case assignments like any other judge, there would be no objection to his oath-taking. Additionally, the plea challenges the very legality of his transfer from Delhi to Allahabad, bringing another layer of complexity to the unfolding judicial drama.
With the Supreme Court and High Court navigating this legal tangle, all eyes are on how this unprecedented situation will unfold.
