The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to annul the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court.

A division bench comprising Justices A.R. Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava found no merit in the petition filed by advocate Vikas Chaturvedi. The Court held that issues pertaining to judicial transfers, oath-taking, and related administrative functions are governed by constitutional provisions ensuring judicial independence, specifically citing Article 124(4) in conjunction with Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The bench emphasized that these matters fall squarely within the constitutional framework protecting judicial tenure and are central to the autonomy of the judiciary.

Justice Varma was sworn in as a judge of the Allahabad High Court on April 5, 2025. Unlike conventional oath-taking ceremonies held in public view, his swearing-in was conducted privately. He will not undertake any judicial assignments until the conclusion of an ongoing inquiry being monitored by the Supreme Court.

The inquiry stems from an incident on March 14, when a fire broke out at Justice Varma's outhouse. Though he was not in the city at the time, firefighters responding to the blaze reportedly discovered bundles of partially burnt cash in a storeroom, igniting public speculation and media scrutiny.

Subsequently, the Chief Justice of India appointed a three-member in-house panel to investigate the matter. Justice Varma has denied any wrongdoing and asserted that he is being defamed in the press.

His transfer was officially notified by the central government on March 28, 2025, following a recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium. He currently ranks sixth in seniority at the Allahabad High Court.

The transfer sparked strong protests from the Allahabad High Court Bar Association, which initiated an indefinite strike demanding action. The strike was suspended after Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna assured the Bar that its concerns would be duly considered.

Earlier, on March 28, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition seeking registration of an FIR against Justice Varma, terming the plea “premature.” The Court clarified that any decision on criminal proceedings would depend on the outcome of the ongoing inquiry.

Case Title: Vikas Chaturvedi v. Union of Bharat through Secretary for Law and Justice, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi & Anr.