Protection Of Judges' Tenure Part Of Independence Of Judiciary: Allahabad HC Rejects PIL Against Justice Yashwant Varma's Transfer

The Allahabad High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the recent transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court. A bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed that the transfer, administration of oath, and functioning of a judge are the concomitants of his/her tenure, which is protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution. The bench further stated that once the transfer notification is legally valid, any challenge to related matters remains equally protected, as long as the proper procedure has been followed. The bench further noted that the protection of tenure is a "part and parcel of the independence of the judiciary", and therefore, invoking writ jurisdiction in this case is, in essence, questioning the tenure itself, a matter on which the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament are decisive. Furthermore, emphasising that no justiciable grounds had been presented to interfere in the matter, the Court also clarified that the privilege of discussion in such matters lies solely within the confines of Parliament and not beyond. “On consideration of the entire material placed on record and the grounds urged before us, we do not gather any procedural irregularity or illegality on account of which the action sought to be assailed may fall as untenable in the eye of law even at the instance of the party aggrieved. (7) That apart, all such decisions taken after following due procedure under law are non-justiciable once the tenure of a High Court Judge is protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India,” the bench observed in its order passed on April 22. Justice Varma, who is currently facing an in-house inquiry over allegations of keeping illicit cash at his official residential premises, took oath as a judge of the Allahabad High Court on April 5. Justice Varma became a centre of controversy on March 21 after the publication of news reports that a fire at a storeroom in the outhouse of his official bungalow led to the discovery of sacks of cash currencies. The instant PIL, filed by Vikash Chaturvedi, an advocate, submitted that the transfer and proposed oath of Justice Varma are violative of the Constitution. The PIL plea, moved through Advocate Ashok Pandey, had also sought a directive to the Chief Justice of the High Court to refrain from administering the oath of office to Judge Yashwant Varma. However, Justice Varma was sworn in as a Judge days after the filing of the Plea. It may be noted that on March 22, the CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, constituted a 3-member committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma, as part of the in-house procedure.This was followed by the Supreme Court making the video of fire dousing, the report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and Justice Varma's response public on its official website. Justice Varma has denied possession of cash and claimed it to be a conspiracy against him.Case title - Vikash Chaturvedi vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. For Law And Justice Shashi Bhawan New Delhi And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 144Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 144Click Here To Read/Download Order

Protection Of Judges' Tenure Part Of Independence Of Judiciary: Allahabad HC Rejects PIL Against Justice Yashwant Varma's Transfer

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags