Justice Yashwant Varma Case: How many High Court judges have been deported, why did NJAC be knocked down?

tHe proposed to transfer the Delhi High Court Judge Judge Yashwant Varma to the Allahabad High Court High Court on Monday (March 24, 2025). Justice Wama was caught in controversy after discovering his residence during the fire.

His transfer proposal came after Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya of Delhi High Court suggested an internal investigation into him. Meanwhile, Justice Valma dismissed the allegations as “conspiracy to harm him.”

How to transfer a high court judge?

Article 222 of the Constitution negotiates with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to transfer the judge from one high court to another. This provision has been the subject of a wide range of judicial interpretations, especially through three landmark rulings known as the first, second and third judge cases.

Editorial | Truth and Transparency: Judicial

exist SP Gupta vs. President of India (1981), commonly known as the first judge case, the Supreme Court held that consultations with the CJI did not require consent, thus confirming the primacy of the executive in judicial appointments and transfers. However, the position was overturned Supreme Court vs. Union of India in Records (1993), or the second judge case, the court institutionalized the university system. The ruling determined that if there is a disagreement between the president and the CJI, the latter’s opinion will prevail.

More importantly, the court emphasized that judicial transfer must serve the public interest and improve judicial management. Justice JS Verma, who wrote the judgment, further clarified that the CJI must consult with the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Supreme Court judge, and at least one High Court judge or anyone else who believes that it is of great significance, including senior members of the lawyer qualification, where appropriate.

The Court further held that involvement of multiple judges in the decision-making process was an inherent guarantee to prevent arbitrary. It therefore limits judicial review of transfer rulings, asserting that such matters should remain in quarantine with “legislative debate” and interventions of “strangers and busy” in judicial affairs.

It is worth noting that the court clarified that the judge’s consent is not a prerequisite for initial or subsequent transfer. In the Third Judge (1998), it further refined the university system, requiring the CJI to negotiate the transfer proposal with four Seniormost judges. Furthermore, it requires the opinions of Supreme Court judges who have previously served in the High Court where judges were transferred.

The law minister reviewed this and recommended the Prime Minister, who then forwarded the recommendation to the president, according to the university’s recommendation. Once approved, the transfer will be formalized by communiqué notice and the judge serves in the new High Court.

What criticisms are there?

one Recent Reports The Geneva-based International Council of Jurists (ICJ) has attracted serious concerns about India’s judicial independence, citing increasing intervention by executives, opaque appointments and weak accountability mechanisms. It stressed that judicial transfers without the consent of the influence judges are often proven on vague reasons such as “public interest” and “better judicial administration.” This makes it difficult to distinguish between legal transfers and punitive or retaliatory behavior, the report notes.

To alleviate these issues, the International Court of Justice recommended that the Parliament establish a “judicial committee” to monitor appointments and transfers based on transparent, objective and pre-determined standards. It further stressed that the Council should form a majority of judges in accordance with international judicial independence standards.

Why did NJAC knock it out?

To address the concerns about opacity of the university system, the Modi government proposed a comprehensive reform of judicial appointments in 2014. In August, the Parliament promulgated the 99th Amendment of 2014 and in 2014 the National Judicial Appointment Commission Act (NJAC) Act established an independent body to replace the university system of appointing judges for the Supreme Court and the High Court.

The NJAC will be chaired by the Chief Justice of India, including two Supreme Court judges, the Union’s Law Minister and two prominent civil society members. One will be nominated by a group composed of CJI, the Prime Minister and opposition leaders, while the other must belong to a pre-determined caste, a pre-determined tribe, other backward classes or become women.

The amendment witnessed a rare political consistency, passed in parliament with almost complete consensus – 543 members voted in favor, while the only objection of experienced jurist Ram Jethmalani – was subsequently approved by 16 state legislatures.

However, within a few days of its enactment, the law was challenged by the Supreme Court. The main debate is to grant veto power to any two dissenting NJAC members, which has the potential to allow the Minister of Law and two prominent members to cover a majority of the judiciary within the committee.

On October 16, 2015, the five benches ruled with a 4:1 majority, that is, the NJAC was unconstitutional and violated the “basic structure of the constitution.” The judge stressed: “The veto power with the Minister of Law or the veto power with the Supreme Court judge who is a member of the university may involve interfering with the independence of the judiciary”.

But Judge Jasti Chelameswar, the lonely dissident, did not hesitate to his criticism of his lack of transparency about the university. He observed that, besides occasional leaks, his records remained “absolutely beyond anyone’s scope, including judges of this court, who were not lucky enough to be the Chief Justice of India.” He further argued that the inclusion of two civil society representatives in the NJAC could have been a guarantee of “unhealthy trade-offs within the cooperative and incest accommodation between the judicial and executive departments.”

What is in front of you?

The Supreme Court clarified in a press release that Justice Wama was transferred to the Allahabad High Court, where he would rank ninth in qualifications, independent and separate from the internal investigation process. ” However, the coalition government has not approved the proposal.

Justice Varma’s transfer appears to avoid an administrative deadlock in Delhi. As the third senior judge, he is a member of the High Court University and several major administrative committees. His judicial work has been suspended due to ongoing investigations and his ongoing presence in Delhi will effectively paralyze the crucial decision-making process.

The development has also been exploited to restore the political arguments of the NJAC. Speaking in Rajya Sabha, Jagdeep Dhankhar said that if the Supreme Court did not defeat the “historic legislation”, “the situation would be different”. Meanwhile, CJI guaranteed a list of petitions seeking FIR registration and conducted a thorough investigation into the incident.