Justice Varma transferred to Allahabad HC amid probe over discovery of cash at his home
New Delhi, Mar 28 (PTI): The government Friday notified the transfer of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma to his parent Allahabad High Court, the order coming amid a row over alleged discovery of a huge amount of cash from his official residence here. The Law Ministry issued a notification announcing his transfer.
Recommending his repatriation to the government on Monday, the Supreme Court Collegium had asserted the move was separate from an in-house probe ordered by the top court over the alleged discovery of cash from Justice Varma's residence after a fire incident around 11.35 on the night of Holi, March 14.
Following the incident, Chief Justice of India had directed the Delhi High Court to withdraw judicial work from the judge.
On March 21, the Supreme Court said Delhi High Court Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya had initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Varma and there was a separate proposal to transfer the judge.
Justice Upadhyaya was stated to have commenced the inquiry prior to a meeting of the apex court Collegium on March 20.
On March 22, the CJI uploaded on the SC website the inquiry report by Chief Justice Upadhyaya, and constituted the three-member committee to conduct an in-house inquiry.
Two days later, the Supreme Court Collegium formally recommended to the Centre Justice Varma's transfer.
"The Supreme Court Collegium in its meetings held on March 20 and 24, 2025 has recommended the repatriation of Justice Yashwant Varma, Judge, High Court of Delhi, to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad," an SC resolution on that day read.
The next day, the three-member SC committee visited Justice Varma's residence, commencing its inquiry into the matter.
Justice Varma has denounced any insinuation and said no cash was ever placed at the site either by him or any of his family members.
Earlier today, the top court rejected a PIL seeking Delhi Police to register an FIR over over the alleged discovery of burnt wads of cash from his official residence, calling the petition "premature".
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said the in-house inquiry was in progress and there would be several options open to the Chief Justice of India after the probe concludes.
Members of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association have been protesting against the Collegium's recommendation to repatriate Justice Varma to the Allahabad HC. The protesting lawyers met Chief Justice Khanna in Delhi Thursday.
Separately, the government also notified the repatriation of Delhi High Court judge Chandra Dhari Singh to the Allahabad High Court.
The Collegium had in November last year recommended Justice Singh's repatriation.
In another order, Justice Arindam Sinha was transferred from the Orissa High Court to the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court Collegium had recommended his transfer earlier this month.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to adjourn hearing on pleas against EC law, says this matter is more important
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to accede to the Centre's request to adjourn the hearing on pleas challenging the constitutional validity of a 2023 law that removed the CJI from a committee responsible for appointing the chief election commissioner and the deputies, saying the matter is "more important" than the Sabarimala case.
A nine-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant is currently hearing petitions regarding discrimination against women at religious sites, including the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, as well as the scope of religious freedom across various faiths.
A bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma turned down the request by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to adjourn the hearing on the ground that he was currently occupied before a nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala reference case.
Referring to the gravity of the current challenge to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, Justice Datta said, "This matter is more important than any other matter."
"Let your (solicitor general's) associates take notes today. Let the petitioners start. All matters are important. We read in the newspapers that there is an observation that the PIL in Sabarimala should not have been entertained by the court. So, with due respect to the judges, nine judges are occupied in a matter where there is an observation that it should not have been entertained in the first place," Justice Datta said.
ALSO READ: Girl mauled to death by stray dogs in Punjab's Hoshiarpur
The bench then directed the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Thursday, allowing the Centre to present its submissions on a subsequent date. The bench then proceeded with the hearing which is underway.
Earlier on March 20, CJI Surya Kant recused himself from hearing the petitions. "I will be accused of conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest," the CJI had said. The law, enacted by Parliament in December 2023, came months after a landmark verdict by which the apex court directed that election commissioners be appointed by a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition, and the chief justice of India.
The bench had said that the system will remain in force till a law is enacted.
Under the 2023 Act, the selection committee consists of the prime minister, a Union minister nominated by the prime minister and the leader of Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha).
The PILs said the exclusion of the CJI from the panel undermines the independence of the appointment process.
The law has been challenged by multiple petitioners, including Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Association for Democratic Reforms.
Earlier, the Centre defended in the Supreme Court the appointment of two new election commissioners under the 2023 law that excludes the chief justice of India from the selection committee, saying the independence of the Election Commission does not arise from the presence of a judicial member on the committee.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the Union law ministry rejected the petitioner's claim that the two election commissioners were hastily appointed on March 14, 2024, to "pre-empt" the orders of the top court the next day, when the matters challenging the 2023 law were listed for hearing on interim relief.
The apex court also refused to stay the appointment of new election commissioners under the 2023 law.
A five-judge constitution bench had in March 2023 ruled that the chief election commissioner and election commissioners shall be appointed on the advice of a committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the chief justice of India.
