Model Answer

The recent resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma during pending removal proceedings has renewed attention on India's framework for judicial accountability. It highlights the need to balance judicial independence with constitutional mechanisms for ensuring accountability.

Constitutional framework

1. Security of tenure protects independence: Judges cannot be removed by the executive at will.
2. Removal requires proved misconduct: Articles 124(4) and 218 permit removal for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
3. Special majority prevents political misuse: Each House must approve removal by a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.
4. Statutory inquiry ensures fairness: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides for an independent investigation before Parliament considers removal.

Accountability concerns

1. Resignation may make removal infructuous: Once a judge leaves office, Parliament has no existing office-holder to remove.
2. Constitutional silence creates ambiguity: The framework does not clearly state whether an inquiry may continue after resignation.
3. Public findings remain necessary: Tabling an inquiry report can establish institutional responsibility even where removal becomes impossible.
4. Other legal liabilities survive: Resignation should not prevent criminal, civil or financial investigation under ordinary law.

Way Forward

1. Amend the Judges (Inquiry) Act: Permit inquiries to reach findings despite resignation, while preserving due process.
2. Create a permanent complaints mechanism: An independent judicial conduct commission can investigate misconduct below the removal threshold.

Judicial independence protects adjudication, not impunity. India needs a framework in which resignation may end tenure, but cannot automatically erase accountability or prevent the truth from being institutionally established.