A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Allahabad High Court, urging the Chief Justice of the High Court to halt the administration of the oath to Justice Yashwant Varma. The plea raises concerns over his swearing-in, as he is currently under an in-house investigation for allegedly keeping illicit cash at his official residence.
The petition, submitted by advocate Vikash Chaturvedi, contends that both the transfer of Justice Varma and his proposed oath-taking violate constitutional provisions.
Read also: Judges Must Remain True To Law: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh Bids Farewell To Delhi High Court
The petitioner has pointed out an essential contradiction in the situation, questioning,
“What oath will he take when the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, has already directed that no judicial work be assigned to him?”
The PIL, filed through Advocate Ashok Pandey, argues that a judge swears to faithfully perform judicial duties. However, since Justice Varma has been barred from judicial work post-oath, the entire process loses its constitutional sanctity, reducing the ceremony to mere formalities.
Read also: Supreme Court Defers Ranveer Allahabadia's Passport Plea; Investigation Nears Completion
A significant argument in the plea is that a sitting judge cannot be denied judicial responsibilities unless officially removed from office by the President of India. The petitioner asserts that if the High Court confirms that Justice Varma will receive case allocations like other judges, he has no objection to the oath ceremony.
“A judge cannot be denied work unless he is officially removed by an order from the President. If the High Court states that Justice Varma will receive case allocations like other judges, the petitioner has no issue with the oath ceremony.”
The plea further asserts that, constitutionally, the Chief Justice of a High Court holds sole authority over the allocation of work to judges, and the Chief Justice of India has no role in this matter.
“The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and decides judicial work allocation. The CJI has no role in this process.”
The PIL also questions the legitimacy of the three-member committee constituted to investigate the allegations against Justice Varma. The petitioner contends that forming such a committee is unconstitutional and illegal, as it should only be established after a motion is passed by the required number of Members of Parliament and accepted by the Speaker or Chairman.
Additionally, the plea demands the cancellation of the Union Law Ministry’s notification ordering Justice Varma’s transfer from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
On March 22, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna appointed a three-member committee to investigate the allegations against Justice Varma as part of the in-house inquiry procedure. Following this, the Supreme Court released a video related to fire dousing, a report from the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, and Justice Varma’s response on its official website.
Justice Varma has firmly denied the allegations of possessing illicit cash, calling it a conspiracy against him.
On March 28, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the registration of an FIR and a criminal investigation against Justice Varma, stating that the outcome of the in-house inquiry must be awaited before further legal action is taken.
