The Supreme Court today firmly clarified that the transfer of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma to the Allahabad High Court has no connection to the alleged discovery of a large stash of cash at his official residence. Emphasizing the importance of preventing misinformation, the court underscored that an in-house inquiry is ongoing as per established judicial protocols and that the transfer decision was made independently of this investigation.
The court issued a formal statement denouncing the rumors circulating about the incident, calling them "unfounded and damaging to the judicial system." It reiterated that Justice Varma’s transfer was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) alongside four senior-most judges, as part of routine judicial reshuffling. Letters seeking opinions on the transfer were sent to consultee judges, the Chief Justices of the relevant High Courts, and Justice Varma himself. These responses are currently under review, and a formal resolution will follow after thorough consideration.
The controversy began when reports surfaced that firefighters, responding to a fire at Justice Varma’s Delhi residence, found large amounts of cash scattered in different rooms. According to sources, Justice Varma was away when the fire broke out. His family, who were present, called the fire brigade. Once the flames were extinguished, firefighters reportedly discovered bundles of currency notes, leading to immediate notification of authorities.
In response to this development, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna swiftly convened a meeting with the Collegium, resulting in the decision to transfer Justice Varma back to the Allahabad High Court, where he had previously served until October 2021. The Supreme Court clarified that the transfer was based on administrative needs and not the cash discovery.
However, the transfer has sparked significant backlash, particularly from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association. The Bar Association passed a strongly worded resolution opposing the move, expressing indignation and stating that the Allahabad High Court is "not a dumping ground for controversial or tainted judges." A senior Bar official remarked, "We were deeply disappointed and taken aback by the Supreme Court’s decision to reassign Justice Yashwant Varma to our High Court. This sends a wrong message to the legal community and the public."
Adding to the complexity, several members of the Collegium reportedly expressed concerns that a simple transfer might not be enough to restore public faith in the judiciary. Some judges argued that leaving the matter unresolved could damage the institution’s credibility, suggesting that Justice Varma should consider resigning voluntarily to safeguard the dignity of the judicial system. They hinted that if he refuses, impeachment proceedings in Parliament — a rare and serious measure — could be explored as a last resort to ensure transparency and accountability.
The ongoing in-house inquiry, led by the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, aims to gather comprehensive evidence surrounding the cash recovery incident. This report is expected to be submitted to the Chief Justice of India by the end of the day. The findings are likely to play a crucial role in shaping the Collegium’s final decision regarding Justice Varma’s career trajectory and whether his transfer will proceed as planned or face reconsideration.
As the situation evolves, legal experts and senior advocates continue to debate whether the transfer is an appropriate solution or merely a temporary fix to avoid larger controversy. The public’s attention remains sharply focused on the inquiry's outcome and the Supreme Court’s next steps, as the judiciary grapples with balancing transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity.
