On the Yashwant Varma probe’s future, Pg8

Key Highlights:

• Justice Yashwant Varma's resignation has brought to the forefront the question of whether a statutory inquiry against a judge should be terminated if the judge resigns amidst parliamentary removal proceedings.
• Similar situations occurred with Justice P.D. Dinakaran in 2011 and Justice Soumitra Sen, where inquiries were either wound up or dropped after their resignations.
• G. Mohan Gopal, a member of the committee investigating Justice Dinakaran, argued that the inquiry is a public good and should continue regardless of the judge's resignation.
• The Supreme Court in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs. Union of India (1991) and Sarojini Ramaswami vs. Union of India (1992), has distinguished the investigative stage as judicial and the decision to remove as political.

Detailed Insights:

• Article 124(5) of the Constitution mandates Parliament to enact a law regulating the investigation of allegations against a judge and the presentation of an address seeking their removal.
• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Sections 3 and 4, governs the investigative work, which, according to G. Mohan Gopal, is a public good owed to the citizenry and the judge.
• Rule 8 of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969, anticipates a situation where a judge may not participate in the inquiry and allows the committee to proceed in their absence.
• Terminating the inquiry upon resignation could create an "absurd situation" where judges facing statutory proceedings can unilaterally abort them, preserving benefits and avoiding formal denting of reputation.
• In Justice P.D. Dinakaran's case, Vice-President Hamid Ansari wound up the committee, citing American precedents that did not align with the specifics of the case.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Statutory Inquiry: A formal investigation mandated by law to examine specific allegations or charges.
• Impeachment: A formal process by which a legislative body levels charges against a high official of government.
• Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution.