Protection To Tenure Of Judge Part & Parcel Of Independence Of Judiciary: Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL Against Transfer Of Justice Yashwant Varma
The Allahabad High Court was considering the PIL seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notification issued by the Centre notifying the transfer of Justice Yaswant Verma from the office of judge of Delhi High Court to the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a Public Interest Litigation challenging the transfer of Justice Yashwant Varma from Delhi High Court in wake of discovery of unaccounted cash from his residence.
The Court was considering the PIL seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notification issued by the Centre notifying the transfer of Justice Yaswant Verma from the office of judge of Delhi High Court to the High Court of Uttar Pradesh.
The division bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed, "Transfer, administration of Oath and functioning of a Judge are the concomitants of tenure protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India. Once the nnotification impugned in the writ petition holds good in the eye of law, challenge to the concomitant part is equally protected provided the procedure is followed. The protection to tenure is a part and parcel of independence of judiciary as an organ of the State, therefore, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned action is virtually nothing but to question the tenure regarding which the proceedings on the floor of the two houses of the Parliament remain decisive but nothing has been brought to our notice attracting justiciability. The Court may hasten to add that the privilege of discussion lies within the precincts of the two houses of the Parliament and not beyond."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Asok Pande while the Respondent was represented by Additional Solicitor General of India Gaurav Mehrotra.
The Court was of the view that there is not 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.
It observed that all such decisions taken after following due procedure under law are non-justiciable once the tenure of a High Court Judge is protected under Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 (1) (b) of the Constitution of India
The Petition was accordingly rejected.
Cause Title: Vikash Chaturvedi vs. Union Of Bharat Thru. Secy. For Law And Justice Shashi Bhawan New Delhi And Another
Click here to read/ download Order