Cash for verdicts? 3 legal luminaries want to give accused judge a chance

As the nation was rocked this morning by the news of the recovery of cash during a fire at Justice Yashwant Varma's house followed by reports that the Supreme Court collegium recommended his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, The Squirrels talked to eminent members of the legal fraternity like Justice (retd) Markandey Katju, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and Advocate Arun Bhardwaj to know how the Indian judiciary was going to deal with this blot on their record.

Not quite surprisingly, all three law stalwarts wanted an internal process of the judiciary to take care of the black sheep.

What happened

A fire that erupted in the home of a Delhi High Court judge led to the discovery of a significant amount of cash, causing a stir within judicial circles and prompting the Supreme Court collegium, chaired by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, to decide on his transfer to another high court.

At the time of the incident, Justice Yashwant Varma was out of town, and his family members contacted the fire department and police. Once the fire was extinguished, first responders uncovered a large sum of cash in one of the rooms, which raised concerns about the legitimacy of the funds.

Local police notified their superiors, who subsequently briefed higher authorities about this unexpected find. The information quickly reached government officials, who informed the Chief Justice about the cash hoard. CJI Khanna responded with urgency, convening a collegium meeting to address the situation.

The collegium reached a consensus that Justice Varma should be transferred without delay, moving him back to his original court, the Allahabad High Court, from which he had transitioned to the Delhi High Court in October 2021.

However, some members of the five-judge collegium expressed concern that merely transferring Justice Varma would not only damage the judiciary's reputation but also undermine public trust in the institution. They suggested that he should be asked to resign, and if he refused, an internal inquiry should be initiated by the Chief Justice as a preliminary step toward potential removal by Parliament.

According to the internal procedures established by the Supreme Court in 1999 for addressing allegations of corruption or misconduct against judges of constitutional courts, the Chief Justice, upon receiving a complaint, must seek a response from the judge involved. If the response is unsatisfactory or if further investigation is warranted, the Chief Justice can form an inquiry panel consisting of a Supreme Court judge and the chief justices of two high courts.

Justice Yashwant Varma, who?

Justice Varma was appointed as a judge of the Delhi High Court on October 11, 2021, nearly seven years after he was elevated to the bench of his original court, the Allahabad High Court.

In the administrative framework of the Delhi High Court, Justice Varma serves on at least 11 committees. His roles include participation in the administrative and general supervision committee, the finance and budgeting committee, and the panel responsible for approving contingent expenditures and writing off losses exceeding Rs 5 lakh.

Justice Varma also chairs the arbitration committee of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

Justice Varma was one of three judges on the permanent committee led by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Manmohan, which made decisions regarding the designation of senior advocates at the Delhi High Court last year.

He studied law in Madhya Pradesh and became an advocate in 1992. During his practice at the Allahabad High Court, he focused on constitutional, labour, and industrial laws, as well as corporate law and taxation. Throughout his seven years as a judge at the Allahabad High Court, Justice Varma handled a variety of cases across constitutional law, taxation, arbitration, and criminal law.

Justice Varma served as the special counsel for the Allahabad High Court from 2006 until he was appointed as an additional judge in October 2014. He also held the position of chief standing counsel for the state of Uttar Pradesh at the Allahabad High Court from 2012 until August 2013, when he was recognized as a senior advocate by the court.

In 2018, Justice Varma granted bail to Dr. Kafeel Khan, who had been in custody for nearly seven months after facing allegations of medical negligence from the Uttar Pradesh government, following the tragic deaths of 63 children and 18 adults due to a lack of medical oxygen at a hospital the previous year.

Justice Varma was appointed as an additional judge of the Allahabad High Court on October 13, 2014, and he took his oath as a permanent judge on February 1, 2016.

During his nearly three-and-a-half-year tenure at the Delhi High Court, Justice Varma presided over several significant taxation cases, including a ruling that dismissed the Congress party's challenge against tax reassessment proceedings initiated in March 2024. The court determined that the income tax authorities had gathered "substantial and concrete evidence" that warranted further investigation, noting that around Rs. 520 crores in income tax had "escaped assessment."

Most recently, in October 2024, Justice Varma declined to intervene in petitions filed by the Airports Authority of India regarding arbitral awards related to disputes with Mumbai International Airport Ltd and Delhi International Airport Ltd, dismissing them under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He stated that it would not be appropriate to challenge an award simply because an alternative perspective existed or if, upon independent evaluation, a more equitable conclusion might have been reached.

In 2023, Justice Varma, leading a two-judge division bench, determined that gold qualifies as a 'prohibited item' for importation under the Customs Act of 1962. He interpreted the term "prohibition" within the Act to encompass goods that are either restricted or regulated, including gold. In the primary opinion he endorsed, the court acknowledged the historical handling of import issues by Customs authorities, remarking that their experience indicated that at times, the relevant authorities had exercised their powers in an arbitrary manner concerning assessment and duty levies, imposition of fines and penalties, as well as the release or redemption of confiscated gold. Such arbitrary actions raised concerns regarding transparency, fairness and equity, which were, they said, essential for upholding the constitutional principle of the rule of law in the nation.

The same year, Justice Varma affirmed a single-judge ruling that recognized director Satyajit Ray as the original copyright holder of the 1966 film Nayak. This decision came in response to an appeal from R D Bansal, the 'Karta' of RDB and Co. (HUF), who sought to prevent Harper Collins from adapting the film's script into a novel. The court concluded that the film “had been authored and scripted by the Late Mr Satyajit Ray and consequently the copyright therein would vest in the said individual alone”.

In 2022, Justice Varma provided clarification on gun ownership laws, stating that individuals with licenses are restricted to owning a maximum of two firearms under the Arms Act of 1959, regardless of their membership in a rifle association or club. The court emphasized that “neither the Constitution nor the Act grants an absolute right for citizens to hold, possess, or carry firearms.” Although the Act does provide exemptions for “any member of a rifle club or rifle association,” Justice Varma pointed out that permitting an individual to possess “any number of firearms” would result in “absurd outcomes,” equating such individuals with arms dealers and rifle associations.