Introduction
The legal fraternity was shaken when reports emerged regarding the alleged recovery of unaccounted cash from the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. This development raised serious concerns about judicial integrity, prompting an in-house inquiry and speculation regarding his transfer. However, the Supreme Court has categorically denied that the Collegium has recommended his transfer due to the cash recovery incident. Instead, a press release issued by the apex court clarifies that the proposed transfer is independent of the ongoing internal inquiry.
Can a Judge Be Transferred Due to an Ongoing Inquiry?
Under the Indian judicial system, High Court judges are transferred based on administrative considerations and not as a form of punishment. Judicial transfers are governed by Article 222 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to transfer a judge after consulting the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, a judge cannot be transferred as a disciplinary action—such action can only be taken through the impeachment process under Article 124(4) and 217(1)(b).
The Supreme Court has clarified that Justice Varma’s proposed transfer is unrelated to the in-house probe. This aligns with past precedents where transfers were made based on administrative reasons rather than punitive actions.
What is the In-House Inquiry Procedure?
The in-house inquiry mechanism for sitting judges was first laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) and later refined in Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995). The procedure ensures judicial accountability while protecting judges from frivolous allegations.
In an In-House Inquiry:
- Chief Justice of the High Court conducts a preliminary confidential inquiry to ascertain the credibility of allegations.
- If credible, the CJI is consulted, and a three-member committee (comprising two Chief Justices from other High Courts and one senior judge) is constituted.
- The committee conducts an in-depth investigation, following principles of natural justice.
- Based on the findings, the CJI may:
- Advise the judge to resign or take voluntary retirement.
- If the judge refuses, restrict their judicial work and inform the President and Prime Minister.
If the allegations are serious and require removal, impeachment proceedings under Article 124(4) are initiated.
Judicial Transparency vs. Confidentiality: The Need for Reform
The Supreme Court's in-house inquiry mechanism has been criticized for its secrecy. In Indira Jaising v. Registrar General, Supreme Court, the Court held that inquiry reports are confidential to protect the judiciary’s independence. However, this has led to lack of transparency, raising public distrust. Given recent controversies, judicial reforms ensuring greater transparency in in-house inquiries are essential.
Conclusion: A Judicial Crisis or Procedural Clarification?
The Supreme Court’s clarification on Justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer underscores the distinction between judicial transfers and disciplinary inquiries. While the cash recovery allegations remain under investigation, the transfer proposal is being considered independently as part of administrative decisions.
