Justice Yashwant Varma, who was transferred from the Delhi High Court to the Allahabad High Court amid cash-at-home allegations, was administered the oath of office in a “clandestine” manner on Saturday, the High Court Bar Association (HCBA) claimed while condemning the move. The lawyers’ body, which had opposed the repatriation of the judge, questioned why “this oath was not notified to the Bar”, and alleged that it has once again eroded public trust in the judicial system.
An in-house inquiry was ordered by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna after the alleged recovery of “four to five semi-burnt sacks” of Indian currency notes from the residence of Justice Varma in Delhi following a fire incident last month. Justice Varma has maintained that neither he nor his family was aware of the stashed money.
In a letter dated April 5 addressed to Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court Arun Bhansali, the HCBA secretary Vikrant Pandey contended that “legally and traditionally, the oath administered to Justice Varma is fallacious and unacceptable” and urged the HC Chief Justice not to assign any administrative and judicial work to the judge.
“The entire Bar Association is at pains to learn about the clandestine manner in which Justice Varma has been administered the oath of his office at Allahabad,” the letter said. “In due deference to our remonstration against the repatriation of Justice Varma to the Allahabad High Court, the CJI had met Bar members and assured that appropriate steps be taken to maintain the dignity of the judicial system,” Pandey said.
“We are given to understand that the system is taking every step in a fair and transparent manner, but why this oath is not notified to the Bar, is a question which again eroded the trust of people in the judicial system,” he said in the letter. “We unequivocally condemn the manner in which Justice Yashwant Varma was administered the oath behind our backs,” he said.
There was no official word from the High Court on the swearing-in of the judge. The incident of cash recovery has reignited debate over the issue of judicial accountability and there have been calls from various quarters for stringent action in the matter to set a precedent and restore faith in the judiciary.
Pandey said that “subscription to oath has traditionally and continuously been conducted in open court”. “Keeping the lawyer fraternity uninformed may erode their confidence in this institution. We request our Chief Justice to protect the fundamental values and follow the traditions of this institution,” he said.
“Also, we have been given to understand that the majority of the judges were also not invited or informed in the aforesaid. Thus, legally and traditionally, the oath administered to Justice Varma is fallacious or unacceptable. “We once again condemn the aforesaid events and request the HC Chief Justice not to assign any administrative and judicial work to Justice Varma,” Pandey said in the letter.
Pandey said that the administration of oath to a judge is a quintessential event in the judicial system. “Lawyers being equal stakeholders in the institution, cannot be kept away. The High Court Bar Association passed a resolution saying therein that this oath is against the Constitution of India and therefore, the members of the Association do not want to be associated with unconstitutional oath.”
“What we resolved, we spoke openly and not only this, we also sent a copy of resolutions to everybody including your lordship. Thus, we failed to understand as to what is the ‘clandestine’ in this oath,” Pandey said.
