PIL Moved In Allahabad HC Against Administering Of Oath To Justice Yashwant Varma, Seeks Quashing Of His Transfer Order

The PIL, filed by Vikash Chaturvedi, an advocate, submitted that the transfer and proposed oath of Justice Varma are violative of the Constitution.

The petitioner has argued that it is unclear “what oath he will take” given that the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, has already asked the High Court Chief Justice not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma.

“The question is that when as per the orders of the (Chief Justice of India), Sri Yaswant Vermaji is not to allocated any work, then for what, he will be administered oath by the Chief Justice of this high court.”

The PIL plea, moved through Advocate Ashok Pandey, adds that a judge takes an oath to faithfully perform the duties of his office, and so, the order not to allocate judicial work to Justice Varma following the oath, undermines its constitutional sanctity, reducing the process to a mere formality.

Interestingly, the petitioner has argued in his PIL that a judge cannot be denied work unless he/she is removed from office by an order from the President.

If the High Court affirms that Justice Varma will be allocated judicial work, as is the case with other High Court judges, the petitioner has no objection to the oath ceremony, the PIL plea states.

In this regard, the petitioner has contended that the Chief Justice of the HC is the master of the roster and is responsible for deciding the allocation of work to judges, and the Chief Justice of India has no role in this process.

“That the petitioner is of view that a judge can not to denied the work allocation unless he is not removed from the office under the orders passed by the President and so if this high court takes a stand that judge Sri Yaswant Verma will be allocated the judicial work as like other high court judges are allocated, the petitioner will have no objection in holding of oath ceremony. The petitioner is submitting so for the reason that as per the constitution and constitution bench decision, the Chief Justice is the master of roaster and so he is to take the decision as to what work will be allocated to which judge and the CJB is having no role to play in it and so, if the high court takes the stand that judge concerned will be allocated the judicial work, the oath ceremony will be valid,” the PIL plea contends.

The petitioner has also submitted that the order constituting the three-member committee in Justice Varma's case is unconstitutional and illegal, as such a committee has to be constituted once a motion moved by the required number of MPs is accepted by the speaker or chairman, as the case may be.

Lastly, the PIL plea also prays that the notification of the Union Law Ministry to transfer Justice Varma from the Delhi HC to the Allahabad HC be quashed.

It may be noted that on March 22, the CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, constituted a 3-member committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma, as part of the in-house procedure.

This was followed by the Supreme Court making the video of fire dousing, the report of the Delhi High Court Chief Justice and Justice Varma's response public on its official website. Justice Varma has denied possession of cash and claimed it to be a conspiracy against him.

On March 28, the Supreme Court rejected a petition seeking the registration of FIR and launch of a criminal investigation against Justice Varma saying that the outcome of the in-house inquiry must be awaited.