India’s Parliament must not stage its Cadaver Synod, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• The Lok Sabha Speaker is set to table the inquiry committee report against Justice Yashwant Varma, who resigned on April 9, 2026.
• Justice Varma's resignation, with immediate effect, occurred before the report, submitted on May 18, 2026, could be presented to Parliament.
• The article draws a parallel to the historical Cadaver Synod, questioning the validity of parliamentary proceedings against a judge who no longer holds office.
• Constitutional provisions, including Article 121 and Article 124(4), govern the discussion and removal of judges, emphasizing judicial independence.

Justice report.jpg

Detailed Insights:

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the procedure for investigating misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge, leading to a potential address to the President for removal.
• Article 121 of the Constitution restricts parliamentary discussion on a judge's conduct unless it is part of a motion for their removal, safeguarding judicial autonomy.
• Article 124(4), applicable to High Court judges via Article 217(1)(b), specifies that removal requires an address by Parliament with a special majority, based on proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• The Supreme Court, in Union Of India vs Shri Gopal Chandra Misra And Ors. (1978), established that a High Court judge's resignation is a unilateral constitutional act, effective immediately upon submission.
• Precedents like Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) demonstrate that impeachment proceedings typically cease upon a judge's resignation.
• The article argues that continuing proceedings against a former judge would be a theatrical exercise, degrading Parliament rather than serving justice, as the purpose of impeachment is removal from office.
• While impeachment ends with resignation, criminal law and examination of pension benefits remain applicable for any alleged offenses by former judges.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The statutory framework regulating the investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of Supreme Court and High Court judges for their removal.
• Article 121: A constitutional provision that restricts parliamentary discussion on the conduct of judges, except during formal removal proceedings, to protect judicial independence.
• Article 124(4): A constitutional provision detailing the process for the removal of a Supreme Court judge, requiring a special majority in Parliament for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be free from interference by the executive and legislative branches of government, crucial for impartial justice.