Why in the News?

On Friday (March 21, 2025), the Supreme Court stated that false information and rumours were being spread about an “incident” at the home of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma, suggesting that this led to his transfer. The Court clarified that the transfer decision was unrelated to the incident.

What was the Supreme Court’s response to the reports regarding the incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence?

• Rejection of Misinformation: The Supreme Court dismissed media reports about a “huge pile of cash” being recovered during a fire at Justice Varma’s residence. Example: It stated that rumours and misinformation were being spread, clarifying that the reports were not verified facts.
• Clarification on Transfer Proposal: The Court confirmed that Justice Varma’s transfer to Allahabad High Court was an independent decision, unrelated to the in-house enquiry into the incident. Example: It emphasized that the transfer process had been initiated separately and was being reviewed by the Collegium before the enquiry even began.
• Confidentiality of the Enquiry Process: The Supreme Court maintained that the in-house enquiry was confidential and aimed at preserving judicial integrity. Example: The Court cited the 2015 Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ vs. Registrar General, MP High Court judgment, which ensures fairness in such proceedings.

Why did the Supreme Court emphasize that the transfer proposal for Justice Yashwant Varma was independent of the in-house enquiry?

• To Prevent Misinterpretation of Judicial Transfers: The Supreme Court clarified that the transfer was part of routine administrative decisions, not a punitive action linked to the enquiry. Example: Justice Varma’s transfer was to his parent High Court (Allahabad), where he would be ninth in seniority, a common practice for judges.
• To Uphold the Collegium’s Credibility: The Court ensured that the Collegium’s decisions were based on judicial requirements, not external events. Example: The Collegium followed its standard procedure of consulting judges and the Chief Justices of the concerned High Courts before deciding on the transfer.
• To Avoid Pre-Judgment of the Enquiry Outcome: If the transfer was seen as linked to the enquiry, it could imply guilt before a formal investigation was concluded. Example: The Court confirmed that the Delhi High Court Chief Justice had initiated the enquiry separately, even before the Collegium met on March 20, 2025.
• To Maintain Judicial Independence and Fairness: Judges must be free from undue influence, and linking transfers to allegations could undermine judicial autonomy. Example: The Court cited the in-house enquiry framework, which ensures that any probe follows due process before any action is taken.
• To Protect the Reputation of the Judiciary: Associating the transfer with allegations could harm the judge’s integrity and create unnecessary controversy. Example: The Supreme Court press note stressed that the transfer decision was made on administrative grounds, separate from any enquiry findings.

How does the in-house enquiry procedure against sitting High Court judges ensure fairness and prevent bias?

• Two-Stage Investigation Process: The procedure involves an initial assessment by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, followed by a deeper probe if required, ensuring a systematic and impartial review. Example: In Justice Yashwant Varma’s case, the Delhi High Court Chief Justice first examined the allegations before forwarding a report to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further action.
• Principles of Natural Justice: The accused judge is given a fair opportunity to present their defense before any decision is made, preventing arbitrary actions. Example: If the CJI determines a deeper probe is needed, a three-member committee (two Chief Justices and one High Court judge) is formed, ensuring multiple perspectives in the investigation.
• Confidentiality to Protect Integrity: The enquiry remains confidential to prevent media trials and undue reputational damage before conclusions are drawn. Example: The Supreme Court’s press note stated that the findings of the Delhi High Court’s in-house enquiry would be examined privately before deciding on further action.

Way forward: 

• Strengthening Transparency and Communication: The judiciary should proactively address misinformation by issuing timely clarifications and making non-confidential aspects of administrative decisions more accessible to prevent speculation and misinterpretation.
• Enhancing Institutional Safeguards: The in-house enquiry mechanism should be periodically reviewed to ensure procedural robustness, fairness, and adaptability while maintaining judicial integrity and independence.

Mains PYQ:

Question: “Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy”. Comment. (2023)

Reason: The proposed transfer of a High Court judge, especially amidst “rumours” touches upon the independence of the judiciary. While the Supreme Court clarifies the transfer is unrelated to the “incident” and in-house inquiry, questions about maintaining judicial independence in the face of potential external pressures or perceptions remain pertinent.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now