Justice Yashwant Varma row: The future of inquiry amid his resignation

The process for the removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. A judge can only be removed on the grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.' The process begins with a motion signed by either 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members, submitted to the Speaker or Chairman. If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is formed, comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist. The crux of this editorial lies in what happens if a judge resigns while this committee is still investigating or before Parliament votes. The historical precedent, as seen in the cases of Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011), is that the proceedings are dropped as infructuous, as the ultimate goal of removal has already been achieved by the resignation. UPSC candidates must understand the constitutional vacuum here: the law is silent on whether the committee's fact-finding mission should conclude even if the judge is no longer in office, leaving allegations unaddressed and creating an 'escape route' for judges facing serious charges.

The abrupt termination of judicial inquiries upon resignation presents a severe challenge to institutional integrity and judicial accountability. When an inquiry is aborted, the allegations of misbehaviour remain unproven but also unrefuted, casting a long shadow over the judiciary. Jurist G. Mohan Gopal's argument, highlighted in the article, suggests that the statutory inquiry committee should complete its mandate regardless of a resignation. This perspective emphasizes that the purpose of the inquiry is not just removal, but establishing the truth and maintaining public trust in the judicial system. Allowing a judge to resign and avoid a formal finding of guilt undermines accountability mechanisms. For UPSC Mains (GS-II), this raises a critical debate: should the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 be amended to mandate the completion of inquiries even post-resignation? The current system prioritizes the outcome (removal) over the process (establishing facts), potentially compromising the principle that no one, not even a constitutional authority, is above the law.

The issue touches upon the core ethical principles of probity in public life and institutional morality. When a judge, who is expected to embody the highest ethical standards, resigns to short-circuit an investigation, it raises profound questions about moral responsibility. While resignation removes the individual from the position, it does not absolve them of the ethical breaches alleged against them. Dropping the inquiry denies closure to the institution and the public. This situation exemplifies the tension between legal proceduralism (dropping a case because the objective of removal is met) and substantive justice (finding the truth). In a GS-IV context, this can be analyzed as a case study: How should an institution balance the practical reality of a resignation against the ethical imperative to thoroughly investigate allegations of misconduct against high-ranking officials? The failure to establish a precedent for completing inquiries allows individuals to escape formal censure, weakening the ethical fabric of the judiciary.