Why in the News?

The issue is in the news because the Lok Sabha Speaker has decided to table the report of the Judges (Inquiry) Committee on allegations against former Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma during the Monsoon Session of Parliament (July 2026) despite his resignation with immediate effect on April 9, 2026. This has triggered a constitutional debate on whether Parliament can continue impeachment proceedings against a person who no longer holds judicial office.

Background

Justice Yashwant Varma resigned while impeachment proceedings under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 were underway. The inquiry committee had already submitted its report before his resignation. The question before Parliament is whether the constitutional process of removal can continue even after the judge has ceased to hold office.

The editorial compares the situation with the Cadaver Synod (897 CE), in which the deceased Pope Formosus was posthumously put on trial. It argues that conducting impeachment against a former judge would similarly become a symbolic exercise with no constitutional purpose.

Constitutional Framework for Removal of Judges

Articles Governing Impeachment

• Article 124(4): Provides for the removal of Supreme Court judges on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity through a special majority in Parliament.
• Article 217(1)(b): Extends the same removal procedure to High Court judges.
• Article 121: Prohibits discussion on the conduct of judges in Parliament except during impeachment proceedings.

The Constitution envisages impeachment solely as a mechanism to remove a sitting judge, not to punish or prosecute an individual after leaving office.

Can Parliament Continue Impeachment After Resignation?

The editorial argues that the answer is no because:

• Resignation immediately vacates the constitutional office.
• The objective of impeachment—removal from office—can no longer be achieved.
• Continuing the process would exceed Parliament’s constitutional jurisdiction.
• The Judges (Inquiry) Act is designed only to facilitate removal and provides no alternative punishment.

Thus, once the office becomes vacant, the constitutional machinery loses its legal basis.

Judicial Interpretation

Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978)

The Supreme Court held that:

• A judge’s resignation under Article 217 is a unilateral constitutional act.
• It requires no acceptance by the President or any other authority.
• Once resignation takes effect, the constitutional relationship between the judge and the office comes to an end.

Accordingly, Justice Varma ceased to be a constitutional functionary from the date his resignation became effective.

Relevant Precedents

Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011)

• Resigned while impeachment proceedings were pending.
• The inquiry process was discontinued without Parliament acting on the report.

Justice Soumitra Sen (2011)

• Resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion.
• Parliament did not continue removal proceedings after his resignation.

These precedents indicate that resignation has traditionally been treated as ending Parliament’s removal jurisdiction.

Constitutional Concerns Raised

The editorial highlights several concerns if Parliament proceeds:

• It could create a precedent for reopening proceedings against retired judges.
• Future governments may use parliamentary majorities to revisit past judicial decisions.
• Such a practice could undermine judicial independence by exposing judges to political scrutiny even after retirement.
• It would blur the constitutional distinction between removal from office and criminal accountability.

Does Resignation End Accountability?

No.

The editorial emphasizes that resignation does not provide immunity from legal action.

If evidence establishes criminal misconduct:

• Investigation can be conducted by competent agencies.
• Prosecution can proceed under ordinary criminal law.
• Courts can determine guilt through due judicial process.

Therefore, criminal liability remains intact even though impeachment becomes infructuous.

Author’s Suggestion

The editorial recommends that Parliament should:

• Table the inquiry committee’s report as part of the official record.
• Avoid initiating impeachment proceedings against a former judge.
• Leave questions of criminal liability to the regular judicial process.
• Uphold the constitutional principle that impeachment exists only to remove an incumbent judge from office.

Significance for UPSC

Prelims

• Articles 121, 124(4) and 217
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
• Removal procedure for Supreme Court and High Court judges
• Constitutional status of judicial resignation

Mains (GS Paper II)

• Judicial independence and parliamentary accountability.
• Constitutional limitations on Parliament’s impeachment powers.
• Separation of powers and judicial accountability.
• Whether resignation should terminate impeachment proceedings against constitutional functionaries.