Justice Yashwant Varma's Repatriation To Allahabad High Court Tarnishes Its

The Allahabad High Court has been in the news for the wrong reasons over the last month and even before that. The High Court sentenced local lawyer Ashok Pande to six months' in jail in a 2021 contempt case for appearing in the court without a lawyer's gown and with his shirt unbuttoned.

Lawyers, who appear for their clients in all 25 high courts throughout India, are mandated to wear a black gown over their black coats and white bands with a white shirt. This is called a “uniform”.” Senior advocates, whom the high court designates under certain provisions of the Advocates’ Act, wear a different gown with a flap at the back and tiny bells on their sleeves, which distinguish them from the rest of the lawyer fraternity.

Senior advocates are not allowed to file their Vakalatnamas to represent clients but have to accept instructions from other advocates who brief them about which legal points to play up and which to gloss over so the best possible scenario for their clients is presented before the high courts, which generally are concerned with questions of law.

To return to the matter at hand, a division bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and B.R. Singh recently declared that "exemplary punishment is warranted" given the seriousness of the charges, Pande's past conduct, and his refusal to participate in the proceedings. The bench also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000, with an additional one-month jail term in case of non-payment of the fine.

Pande was given four weeks to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow to serve out his sentence. If he did not comply with the order of the Allahabad High Court, a non-bailable warrant would be issued against him.

The bench also issued a show cause notice to Pande, questioning why he should not be barred from legal practice in the Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow bench. He was given time until May 1 to respond.

These suo motu contempt proceedings began after Pande appeared in court on August 18, 2021, in improper attire and, allegedly, misbehaved with the judges, calling them "goondas" when his appearance was challenged and he was asked to leave.

Despite multiple opportunities, Pande never responded to the contempt charges. The court also noted his history of prior contempt proceedings, including a two-year ban from the high court premises in 2017.

What makes things fascinating is that this is not the first unsavoury incident in the Allahabad High Court, which has the distinction of being the largest high court in India with a sanctioned strength of 160 judges. The high court can have 119 judges as well as 41 additional judges and, currently, has 79 permanent judges, coming from diverse backgrounds. Some of them have been elevated from the district judiciary, while others have been elevated from the bench.

Be that as it may, the latest scandal to affect the prestige of the Allahabad High Court was when Justice Yashwant Varma was repatriated to his parent high court after burnt cash was found in an outhouse annexe to his official residence.

Although the collegium headed by the 51st CJI, Sanjiv Khanna, clarified that his repatriation had nothing to do with the finding of cash, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association passed a unanimous resolution strongly opposing the same. The association said the Allahabad High Court was not “a dumping ground for corrupt judges”.

Leaving that aside, CJI Sanjiv Khanna has given instructions to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court not to give any judicial work to the judge until the three-member judicial committee, set up by the CJI, gives its verdict. Nothing has emerged about this report, which is yet to become public. But what makes things doubly interesting is the fact that Justice Varma was sworn in secrecy with no intimation to the president of the Allahabad High Court Bar Association or other dignitaries, which was unprecedented in the annals of judicial history.

Yet another unsavoury incident to tarnish the image of the Allahabad High Court was a speech given by Justice Shekhar Yadav in the library of the high court declaring the law was made for the majority and the minority would have to accept it. His speech, which could be construed as creating social divisions, went viral, and he was summoned by the CJI and his collegium.

Justice Shekhar Yadav, whose file was cleared either by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath or his predecessors, is alleged to be close to the saffron political outfits. The CJI directed him to issue a public apology, which he promised to do and later retracted.

As of now, he has been allotted judicial work, which is not very sensitive, and his religious predilections will not affect his judgements. Be that as it may, by first promising to apologise and later retracting, the judge has indirectly conveyed that the collegium is powerless. He faces impeachment in Parliament, but whether the impeachment process will ever culminate in him being removed from the judicial office is doubtful. This is because not a single impeachment motion has ever led to the removal of a judge from office.

Several years ago, Tehelka news magazine had done a cover story on what they called the “uncles judges syndrome”, which afflicted the Allahabad High Court because the kith-and-kin of some judges were appointed as judges. This may be partially true because activist-advocate Mathews Nedumpara has compiled a chart of judges in 25 high courts and the Supreme Court who are the kith and kin of judges or are politically well-connected.

This does not imply that merit is ignored while appointing chief justices and judges. One of the chief justices of the Allahabad High Court was the 50th CJI, Dhananjay Chandrachud, who was known to be honest and suave, sophisticated and polite. He, too, was the son of the longest-serving CJI, Yeshwant Chandrachud, but there was no doubt that meritocracy overruled obduracy. This was proved when he refused to elevate judicial officers with questionable work ethics.

Olav Albuquerque holds a PhD in law and is a senior journalist and advocate at the Bombay High Court