The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL challenging Justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer from Delhi. The Court ruled the move legal and non-justiciable under the Constitution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court on April 23 rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.
This decision was taken by a division bench of Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava on Wednesday.
ALSO READ: Notable Judgments by Justice Yashwant Varma: Delhi High Court
The High Court bench said clearly that the PIL did not have any strong reason or legal value. They ruled that the transfer of a judge and related actions are allowed and protected under the Indian Constitution.
“Transfer, administration of Oath and functioning of a Judge are the concomitants of tenure protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India. Once the notification impugned in the writ petition holds good in the eye of law, challenge to the concomitant part is equally protected, provided the procedure is followed,”
-the Court said in its judgment.
The judges also said that courts cannot interfere in such matters from the judicial side.
“All such decisions (regarding transfers and appointments of judges) taken after following due procedure under law are non-justiciable once the tenure of a High Court Judge is protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India … We do not find that any of the grounds urged before us is made out, more so when the issue raised before this Court is non-justiciable,”
-the Court added.
The Court emphasized that a judge’s job security is a part of judicial independence, which is very important in our system of government.
“The protection to tenure is a part and parcel of independence of judiciary as an organ of the State, therefore, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned action is virtually nothing but to question the tenure regarding which the proceedings on the floor of the two houses of the Parliament remain decisive but nothing has been brought to our notice attracting justiciability. The Court may hasten to add that the privilege of discussion lies within the precincts of the two houses of the Parliament and not beyond,”
-the Court said.
Justice Yashwant Varma’s transfer had become controversial recently.
This happened after firefighters who responded to a minor fire at his residence in Delhi reportedly found unaccounted cash.
Following this incident, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna ordered an in-house investigation.
After this, the Supreme Court Collegium decided to transfer Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court, which is his original court. This decision was opposed by many lawyers in Uttar Pradesh, but the Central government eventually gave its approval. Justice Varma officially took oath as a judge of the Allahabad High Court on April 5.
However, even though he took oath, Justice Varma has not been given any judicial work yet. This is because the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to not assign him any judicial duties for now.
In the meantime, a lawyer named Vikash Chaturvedi filed a PIL in the High Court, objecting to Justice Varma’s transfer. He said the move went against the Constitution of India.
He also argued that when a judge takes an oath, he promises to carry out his duties honestly. So, not giving Justice Varma any work after the oath makes the oath-taking look like just a formal event with no real value.
Still, the Court rejected this argument and dismissed the petition.
“We do not gather any procedural irregularity or illegality on account of which the action sought to be assailed may fall as untenable in the eye of law even at the instance of the party aggrieved,”
-the Court said.
Advocate Ashok Pandey appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Gaurav Mehrotra represented the Central government.
CASE TITLE:
Vikas Chaturvedi v Union.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
