The Supreme Court collegium’s decision to transfer justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi high court to the Allahabad high court was not merely a response to the controversy surrounding him, but also a pragmatic move to prevent an administrative impasse in Delhi. Justice Varma, by virtue of his seniority, was a member of both the collegium and key administrative committees in the Delhi high court. With his judicial work suspended in light of the ongoing inquiry into the allegations concerning the discovery of large sums of cash at his official residence, his continued presence in Delhi would have effectively stalled critical decision-making processes.
All five members of the Supreme Court collegium were thus unanimous in their decision to repatriate justice Varma. As per the established procedure, following the collegium’s March 20 meeting, where the decision was taken to transfer him, justice Varma was asked for his opinion. In his response, he consented to return to the Allahabad high court, his parent institution.
While his judicial work was withdrawn following a Delhi high court circular issued on Monday morning, his status as a senior judge meant that he remained a member of the high court collegium and various administrative committees. People familiar with the deliberations confirmed that his continued presence in these crucial bodies would have led to an operational deadlock.
“His predicate position meant that all work of the collegium would come to a halt if he were to continue at Delhi,” said a person aware of the discussions.
Further, administrative committees play a pivotal role in managing judicial postings, transfers, and other essential court functions. “If justice Varma remained in Delhi without a resolution to the inquiry, the collegium and committees he was part of would have been unable to function effectively, impacting the high court’s operations,” said this person.
In contrast, at the Allahabad high court, justice Varma will be ranked lower in seniority and will not be a member of the collegium or key administrative bodies. “This shift ensures that judicial and administrative work in Delhi can proceed unhindered, while allowing for the inquiry against him to continue without causing disruptions to institutional functions,” said another person cited above.
The collegium’s decision to transfer justice Varma was preceded by intense internal discussions. On March 20, at least two collegium members had debated whether a transfer alone would be sufficient, given the nature of the allegations against him. Some members suggested stronger action, including immediate suspension of his judicial duties, while others emphasised the need for an in-house investigation to uphold institutional integrity. On the day, the CJI had assured the collegium of taking all possible steps to ensure fairness and judicial ethics. Later, on March 22, the CJI set up an in-house inquiry panel, comprising two high court chief justices and one high court judge, to look into the allegations against justice Varma. The CJI also mandated that justice Varma’s judicial work be withdrawn pending the inquiry. It is understood that this mandate would continue to operate as and when justice Varma is moved back to the Allahabad high court, following the Centre’s approval.
In its meeting on Monday, the collegium resolved that a transfer would address both the practical and reputational concerns arising from the case.
Justice Varma’s transfer has sparked debate within the legal fraternity. The Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA) had last week expressed strong reservations about the decision, questioning whether the Allahabad high court is being treated as a “dumping ground.” In a statement issued on Monday, the bar body again opposed the transfer and resolved to abstain from work. It demanded the the CJI should recommend impeachment proceedings against justice Varma, besides registration of criminal cases into the alleged recovery of huge amounts of cash from justice Varma ‘s official residence on March 14.
Additionally, in Parliament, the issue of judicial accountability gained traction following the controversy. On March 21, Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar responded to Congress MP Jairam Ramesh’s call for structured discussions on judicial accountability, indicating a growing demand for reforms in the system.