Judicial Accountability Debate Deepens After Justice Yashwant Varma Case Highlights Constitutional Gaps in Judges' Removal Process

Recent Developments:

• The Inquiry Committee Report against former Allahabad High Court and Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma is scheduled to be laid before Parliament during the Monsoon Session, 2026.
• The case has reignited debate on judicial accountability, judicial independence, the constitutional power of judges to resign at will, and the limitations of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
• The controversy has also drawn attention to administrative inconsistencies after Justice Varma's name continued to appear in the list of sitting judges despite his resignation.

Background of the Case:

Origin of the Controversy:

• The case originated in March 2025 after partially burnt currency notes were reportedly discovered in an outhouse attached to the official residence of Justice Yashwant Varma.
• Acting under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha constituted an Inquiry Committee to investigate allegations of proved misbehaviour.
• Before completion of the inquiry, Justice Varma tendered his resignation on 9 April 2026.
• The Inquiry Committee completed its investigation, and its report is now scheduled to be placed before both Houses of Parliament.

Constitutional Framework Governing Resignation of Judges:

Power to Resign at Will:

• The Constitution of India permits certain constitutional functionaries to resign voluntarily by submitting a written resignation to the designated constitutional authority.
• The resignation becomes effective without requiring formal acceptance, unless the Constitution expressly provides otherwise.
• Constitutional authorities enjoying this power include:
• President of India, Vice-President of India, Governor.
• Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies.
• Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of State Legislative Councils.
• Members of the Union and State Public Service Commissions.

Constitutional Purpose:

• The power protects judicial independence by ensuring that judges cannot be compelled to continue in office against their will.
• The provision prevents any constitutional authority from exercising indirect control over judges through acceptance or rejection of resignations.
• The mechanism reinforces the broader principle of independence of the judiciary, which forms part of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

Judges of the Supreme Court:

• Article 124(2)(a) provides that a Supreme Court Judge may resign by writing addressed to the President of India.

Judges of the High Courts:

• Article 217(1)(a) provides that a High Court Judge may resign by writing addressed to the President of India.

Removal of Judges:

• Article 124(4) provides that a Supreme Court Judge may be removed only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity through a special majority of Parliament.
• Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to enact a law regulating the procedure for investigation and removal of judges.
• Article 218 extends these removal provisions to High Court Judges.

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:

Purpose of the Act:

• The Act prescribes the statutory procedure for investigating allegations against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• The Act operationalises Articles 124(5) and 218 of the Constitution.

Removal Procedure:

• A removal motion may be initiated by the required number of Members of Parliament.
• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may admit the motion.
• A three-member Inquiry Committee is constituted comprising:
• A Judge of the Supreme Court.
• A Chief Justice of a High Court.
• An eminent jurist.
• If the Committee finds proved misbehaviour or incapacity, Parliament may consider the removal motion.
• Removal requires adoption by each House of Parliament through a special majority, followed by an order of the President of India.

Judicial Interpretation on Resignation:

Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978):

• A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that resignation by a judge becomes effective automatically upon submission unless a future effective date is specified.
• The Court clarified that acceptance by the President is not a constitutional requirement.
• The judgment recognised the principle of ex proprio vigore, meaning that resignation operates by its own force without any external approval.

Administrative Issue Highlighted by the Case:

Continuation of Name in Official Records:

• Even after resignation, Justice Varma's name reportedly continued to appear on the websites of the Allahabad High Court and the Department of Justice.
• Since resignation took effect immediately upon submission, continued inclusion of his name in the list of sitting judges represented an administrative inconsistency rather than a constitutional requirement.
• The incident highlights the need for timely updating of official judicial records.

Effect of Resignation on Removal Proceedings:

Inquiry Committee Report:

• Resignation does not invalidate the inquiry already conducted into the judge's conduct.
• The Inquiry Committee Report may still be formally laid before Parliament because the statutory inquiry has already concluded.
• Publication of the report serves the objective of institutional transparency and public accountability.

Removal Proceedings:

• Once a judge resigns, he or she no longer occupies judicial office.
• Parliament cannot proceed with a motion seeking removal from an office that has already been vacated.
• Consequently, the removal motion lapses even if the Inquiry Committee establishes proved misbehaviour.

Judicial Accountability Loophole:

Existing Constitutional Gap:

• A judge facing removal proceedings may resign before Parliament completes the impeachment process.
• Such resignation effectively terminates the removal mechanism.
• The present framework does not provide any mechanism for Parliament to continue deliberations solely for fixing institutional accountability.
• The situation may reduce public confidence in judicial disciplinary mechanisms while leaving findings of misconduct without constitutional consequences.

Suggested Constitutional Reforms:

Proposals by Legal Experts:

• A constitutional amendment may provide that resignation submitted during pending removal proceedings shall require formal acceptance.
• To preserve judicial independence, the authority to accept such resignation may vest in the Chief Justice of India rather than the Executive.
• Parliament may be empowered to discuss the Inquiry Committee Report even after resignation of the concerned judge.
• Any reform should emerge through constitutional amendment instead of judicial or executive interpretation to preserve the Rule of Law.

Significance for Indian Constitutional Governance:

Judicial Independence, Judicial Accountability:

• Judicial independence remains indispensable for maintaining constitutional democracy.
• Judicial accountability is equally essential for preserving institutional credibility.
• Constitutional design must maintain an appropriate balance between independence and accountability.

Parliamentary Oversight:

• The case highlights Parliament's constitutional role in removal of judges.
• It also exposes limitations in the present impeachment framework where resignation interrupts parliamentary scrutiny.

Transparency, Public Confidence:

• Transparent disciplinary mechanisms strengthen citizens' confidence in constitutional institutions.
• Public disclosure of completed inquiries enhances institutional legitimacy while respecting due process.

Related Constitutional Principles:

Basic Structure Doctrine:

• Judicial Independence forms an integral component of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Parliament cannot dilute this principle even through constitutional amendment, as held in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

Separation of Powers:

• Judicial accountability mechanisms must preserve the constitutional balance among the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary.
• Excessive executive control over judicial tenure may undermine institutional independence.

UPSC Value Addition:

Important Constitutional Articles:

• Article 124 — Appointment, resignation and removal of Supreme Court Judges.
• Article 217 — Appointment and resignation of High Court Judges.
• Article 218 — Application of removal provisions to High Court Judges.
• Article 121 — Restricts discussion regarding conduct of judges in Parliament except during removal proceedings.
• Article 211 — Restricts discussion regarding conduct of High Court and Supreme Court judges in State Legislatures.

Important Acts:

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
• Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.

Important Judgments:

• Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978).
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case, 1993).
• In re Presidential Reference (Third Judges Case, 1998)