Delhi High Court Judge’s Transfer Sparks Controversy Amid Alleged Corruption Scandal

New Delhi witnessed a dramatic turn of events on March 14 when a routine firefighting operation escalated into a major controversy, shaking the foundations of India’s judiciary. Firefighters responding to a fire in a residential building in the capital made an unexpected discovery—a large sum of cash allegedly stashed inside the home of Delhi High Court Judge, Justice Yashwant BMA.

Though the judge was not present at the time, his relatives raised the alarm about the fire. Firefighters, upon dousing the flames, reportedly found the suspicious cash and promptly informed higher authorities. The matter quickly reached the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, who acted swiftly, convening the Supreme Court collegium—the top decision-making body of the judiciary responsible for judicial appointments and transfers.

Immediate Transfer and Inquiry Initiated

Following deliberations, the collegium decided to transfer Justice BMA back to the Allahabad High Court, where he had previously served before his appointment to the Delhi High Court in 2021. Simultaneously, an inquiry into the matter was launched, with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court directed to submit a report on the incident.

However, the transfer decision was met with backlash from lawyers in the Allahabad High Court, who strongly opposed the move, declaring that their court should not be treated as a "dumping ground for tainted judges." The controversy deepened when Delhi’s fire chief later stated that no cash had been found at the judge’s residence, raising questions about the motive behind the reports and the subsequent transfer.

Implications for the Judiciary

The unfolding events have sparked concerns over judicial accountability and the opaque nature of the collegium system. Legal experts argue that the episode highlights systemic flaws within India’s judicial appointment and disciplinary processes. The Supreme Court Bar Association’s President, Kapil Sibal, has called for urgent reforms, emphasizing the need for greater transparency in judicial appointments.

India’s judiciary, which operates under the collegium system, allows judges to appoint and regulate their own peers, with minimal external oversight. Critics argue that this lack of accountability has led to a system where allegations of corruption can either be overlooked or handled internally without sufficient scrutiny.

If the ongoing inquiry finds Justice BMA guilty of misconduct, the Chief Justice of India has the authority to demand his resignation. Should he refuse, the only course of action would be impeachment by the Indian Parliament—a process requiring a two-thirds majority vote. Such an event would mark a significant moment in India’s legal history, as the impeachment of a sitting High Court judge is rare.

Beyond corruption allegations, the judiciary is also facing scrutiny over the quality of judicial pronouncements. A recent ruling from an Allahabad High Court judge, claiming that groping a woman’s breast does not amount to rape, has reignited debates over judicial competence and decision-making. Critics argue that such judgments reflect the urgent need for judicial reforms.

With 1.4 billion Indians relying on the judiciary for justice, the question remains—how will India’s legal system address corruption, accountability, and the need for a more transparent appointment process? As the spotlight remains on the collegium, stakeholders across the legal fraternity are calling for reforms that can restore public confidence in India’s judicial system.