New Delhi [India]: Senior advocate Indira Jaising has raised concerns over the lack of transparency regarding the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendation to transfer Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to his parent High Court in Allahabad. The transfer follows an alleged adverse report against the judge.
Speaking to media, Jaising said, “I think it’s unfair and improper to make comments based on insufficient information. So, I would prefer to request the Commission to be transparent and to publish information relating to this particular incident. In particular, the circumstances under which the money was recovered.”
She further emphasized the need for transparency, stating, “The reason why I think this information should be made public is because everyone has a right to have their point of view in the public domain. And now all that we have is speculation.”
Jaising also highlighted the legal framework regarding judicial accountability, stating, “Of course, the law is that a judge is not immune from prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The only gateway is that you need the sanction of the Chief Justice of India.”
Supreme Court’s Response and Inquiry Update
On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a statement clarifying that the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had initiated an in-house inquiry upon receiving information regarding allegations against Justice Varma. The inquiry involved gathering evidence and compiling a report, which was submitted to the Chief Justice of India on March 21.
According to the Supreme Court’s press release, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had already begun the inquiry before the Supreme Court Collegium’s meeting on March 20. The statement confirmed, “The report will be examined and processed for further and necessary action.”
The apex court also addressed misinformation surrounding the case, stating, “There is misinformation and rumours being spread with regard to the incident at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma.”
Clarification on Justice Varma’s Transfer
Following controversy over the alleged recovery of a large amount of cash from Justice Varma’s residence, the Supreme Court denied that his transfer was recommended by its Collegium. It clarified that the proposal to transfer him had been sent by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court stated that the Collegium had sought responses from consultee judges of the Supreme Court, as well as the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, along with Justice Varma himself. The Collegium will review these responses before making a final decision on his transfer.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that the transfer process and the in-house inquiry are separate, stating, “The proposal for transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma, who is the second senior-most Judge in the Delhi High Court and a member of the Collegium, to his parent High Court i.e. the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, where he will be ninth in seniority, is independent and separate from the in-house enquiry procedure. Moreover, the reported incident has happened in Delhi.”
The Collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, examined the proposal on March 20, 2025. Letters were sent to consultee judges and concerned Chief Justices, and once responses are received, a resolution will be passed.
Details of the Alleged Cash Recovery
The in-house inquiry was triggered by allegations of a significant cash recovery from Justice Varma’s residence in Delhi. According to media reports, a fire at his house on March 14 led to the discovery of cash by firefighters. Justice Varma was reportedly not present at the time.
Earlier, media had reported that after the preliminary inquiry, Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya would submit his findings to the Supreme Court Collegium. Sources in the Supreme Court indicated that “follow-up action if and as required will be taken by the Supreme Court Collegium against Justice Varma.”
Within the Delhi High Court, members of the Bar raised concerns before Chief Justice Upadhyaya, who acknowledged that judges were aware of the issue.