The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.

A bench comprising Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I held that a judge’s transfer, administration of oath, and functioning are integral aspects of their tenure, protected under Article 124(4) read with Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that once a transfer notification is legally valid, any challenge to associated actions stands equally protected, provided due process has been followed. It further observed that the protection of a judge’s tenure is fundamental to judicial independence, and that invoking writ jurisdiction in this context effectively questions the tenure itself — a matter that falls within the exclusive domain of Parliament.

Highlighting the absence of any procedural irregularities or justiciable grounds, the bench underlined that discussions on such matters are reserved for Parliament and cannot be subject to judicial review. “On consideration of the entire material placed on record and the grounds urged before us, 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 in its April 22 order. It reiterated that decisions taken in accordance with legal procedures are non-justiciable once the protection of tenure under Article 124(4) read with Article 217(1)(b) is secured.

Justice Varma, who is currently facing an in-house inquiry over allegations concerning illicit cash found at his official residence, was administered the oath of office at the Allahabad High Court on April 5.

Controversy arose on March 21 after news reports emerged about a fire incident at a storeroom in the outhouse of Justice Varma’s official bungalow, allegedly leading to the discovery of sacks of currency notes.

The PIL, filed by Advocate Vikash Chaturvedi and argued by Advocate Ashok Pandey, contended that the transfer and proposed oath ceremony were unconstitutional. It also sought a directive restraining the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court from administering the oath to Justice Varma. However, Justice Varma was sworn in shortly after the PIL was filed.

It is pertinent to note that on March 22, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna constituted a three-member committee to inquire into the allegations against Justice Varma as part of the in-house procedure. Subsequently, the Supreme Court made public the video footage of the fire, the report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, and Justice Varma’s response — in which he denied any possession of cash and alleged a conspiracy against him.

Case Title: Vikash Chaturvedi vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. For Law And Justice Shashi Bhawan New Delhi And Another

Would you also like me to give you a shorter or more formal version depending on where you plan to use it?