The upcoming monsoon session of Parliament, starting from July 21, is likely to include the motion of removal against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma. As mandated by the Constitution, the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court judges can only be addressed through a formal removal motion, presented to the President following a specific procedure.
The impeachment motion follows the findings of a three-member committee, appointed by then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, which found Justice Varma guilty of misconduct. The investigation was triggered by a fire at his New Delhi residence in March—during his tenure at the Delhi High Court—which led to the discovery of unaccounted cash in an outhouse.
A History of Incomplete Impeachment Proceedings
This is not the first instance of Parliament initiating proceedings to remove a sitting judge. However, no impeachment motion in India has ever been completed, and no judge has formally been removed by the President.
The Constitution—under Articles 124 (4) and (5), 217 (1)(b), and 218—permits removal only on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity,” terms that remain undefined. As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a complaint must be probed before being taken up by Parliament. A motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, and then passed by a two-thirds majority in both Houses.
Precedents and Pattern of Resignations
India’s first judicial impeachment attempt was against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993, who was accused of extravagant expenditure during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The motion failed in the Lok Sabha due to a mass abstention by Congress MPs.
Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court resigned after the Rajya Sabha passed a motion for his removal over fund misappropriation. Similarly, Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned before impeachment proceedings could begin, following serious allegations of land grabbing and corruption.
Two attempts were made to impeach Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana High Court in 2016 and 2017, including charges of casteist abuse and interference in judicial proceedings. Both motions failed to gain traction.
These cases reflect a worrying trend: judges resign before the impeachment process concludes, thereby avoiding formal scrutiny and eroding the possibility of setting judicial precedents for accountability.
A Weak and Opaque Accountability Framework
This repeated failure to complete impeachment processes highlights deep flaws in judicial accountability. The higher judiciary, which should embody constitutional morality, currently operates with limited internal checks. The resignation of judges under clouded circumstances is a convenient escape that bypasses both institutional discipline and public censure.
A resignation at this stage nullifies the very purpose of the impeachment process—denying both legal sanction and moral condemnation. More critically, it deprives the public of reassurance that misconduct will be punished, thereby undermining the faith that sustains judicial authority.
The Need for a Stronger Mechanism
Judges hold constitutional authority and must be held to the highest standards of integrity. Unlike elected officials, they are not accountable through electoral means. When a judge is accused of corruption, it is not just a personal failing—it is a betrayal of the judiciary and the democratic framework it upholds.
Letting judges resign without facing full legal and moral scrutiny sends a dangerous message: that impeachment is a symbolic gesture, not a real deterrent. For accountability to be meaningful, the process must be completed—even if the outcome is only symbolic. Only then can the judiciary reinforce its moral standing as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
