When a fire broke out at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, no one expected it to light a political and legal fuse of this scale. But what followed—the discovery of a large amount of unexplained cash at his home—has shaken the corridors of the judiciary and raised serious questions about transparency, accountability, and how quickly the system responds when one of its own is under the scanner.
Justice Varma has now been recommended for transfer to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium. But this move has only intensified the controversy. The Centre has received the case file and is “reviewing” the matter, according to sources, alongside other Collegium recommendations.
Bar Associations Fight Back
The Allahabad Bar Association erupted in protest against the transfer. Their demand was simple: they do not want a judge with alleged links to corruption on their bench. They’ve gone on an indefinite strike, and bar associations across the country have expressed solidarity, warning of nationwide protests if their concerns are ignored.
Meanwhile, CJI Sanjiv Khanna met bar leaders and assured them that the demand to reconsider the transfer would be taken seriously. He has also set up a three-member panel to probe the incident, acknowledging the seriousness of the issue.
Justice Varma Speaks
Justice Varma, however, maintains his innocence. He claims the entire episode is a conspiracy to defame him, and that the media has been used to tarnish his reputation. But as images of the cash haul made headlines, public trust in the judiciary has once again been put to the test.
The Larger Picture
This incident goes beyond one judge or one transfer. It reflects a deeper crisis in the Indian judicial system, where accountability often clashes with opacity. Why did the fire lead to the discovery of the cash? Who is protecting whom? Why is the response to such serious allegations limited to mere transfer and procedural inquiry?
And most importantly—where is the transparency that citizens deserve from a pillar of democracy?
If the judiciary hopes to maintain its credibility, it must do more than shift judges from one bench to another. It must confront the rot within, ensure independent investigations, and uphold the values it claims to protect.
