Parliament to debate former judge Yashwant Varma's status after resignation amidst misbehavior charges, sparking debate on judicial accountability and constitutional loopholes.
Former High Court judge Yashwant Varma resigned amidst an inquiry into alleged misbehaviour under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The allegations stemmed from the discovery of partially burnt currency notes at his official residence in March 2025.
Despite his resignation on April 9, 2026, some official lists continue to identify him as a sitting judge.
The Constitution grants High Court judges the power to resign "at will," meaning their resignation does not require acceptance by any authority.
Detailed Insights:
The inquiry committee was constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) affirmed that judges' resignations do not require acceptance.
The power to resign at will is a constitutional safeguard for the independence of judicial offices.
While the inquiry report can be laid before Parliament and made public, the motion for removal becomes moot after a judge's resignation.
The current legal framework presents a loophole, allowing judges facing removal proceedings to evade accountability by resigning.
An amendment to the Constitution is proposed to make the resignation of a judge facing removal subject to acceptance, ideally by the Chief Justice of India.
Amending the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is also suggested to permit parliamentary discussion of inquiry reports even after a judge's resignation.
Key Concepts Involved:
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Legislation that establishes the procedure for investigating allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against Supreme Court and High Court judges.
Resignation at Will: A constitutional provision allowing certain officeholders, including judges, to resign by merely submitting their resignation without requiring external acceptance.
Judicial Independence: The principle that the judiciary should be impartial and free from improper influence from other branches of government or private interests.