OPINION | Justice Yashwant Varma’s impeachment case: What happens when a judge resigns?
Justice Yashwant Verma Impeachment: Resignation Impact Explained
Committee Proceeds Despite Judge's Departure
Indiadailyupdate.com – OPINION | Justice Yashwant Varma's impeachment case: What happens when a judge resigns? The legal community was taken aback when the three-member inquiry committee continued its investigation even after Justice Yashwant Verma submitted his resignation. This committee, consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished legal scholar, eventually issued a report finding the former judge guilty of misconduct. Many legal experts viewed this conclusion as constitutionally problematic, noting that committee members seemed unfamiliar with established principles concerning judicial resignations and their effect on pending proceedings.
How the Impeachment Process Works
Justice Verma, who previously served on the Delhi High Court before his transfer to the Allahabad High Court, encountered corruption allegations that led Parliament to begin impeachment proceedings. Under the Indian Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, an impeachment motion requires backing from either one hundred Lok Sabha members or fifty Rajya Sabha members. Following admission, the matter advances to a three-member committee created under section 3(2) of this legislation.
If this committee concludes that the charges are substantiated, it returns the motion to Parliament. The Constitution, through Article 218 combined with Article 124(4), requires both Houses to approve removal through a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber.
Legal Effect of Judicial Resignation
During the committee's deliberations, Justice Verma presented his resignation to the President, who acknowledged receipt of the document. Constitutional provisions governing both Supreme Court and High Court judges establish that resignation takes immediate effect upon presidential receipt. Unlike regular government employees, whose resignations require formal acceptance to become operative, judicial resignations do not depend on presidential approval or official gazette notification.
The legal position was firmly established by the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Gopal Chandra Mishra, decided in 1978.
Once the President receives the resignation, any ongoing impeachment proceedings become infructuous. The fundamental purpose of impeachment is to remove a sitting judge from office. When the individual has already resigned and ceased to hold judicial office, the question of removal becomes moot.
Historical Precedent: The Dinakaran Case
A parallel situation occurred with Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who previously served as a Madras High Court judge and later as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court before becoming head of the Sikkim High Court. Impeachment proceedings were launched against him in Parliament on corruption grounds. However, he resigned before the process concluded, leading to the proceedings being dropped as they had become infructuous.
Prosecution Remains Available
It is important to distinguish between impeachment and criminal prosecution. Section 2(c)(iv) of the Indian Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, explicitly includes judges within the definition of public servants eligible for prosecution. Should Justice Verma face legal action, it must occur through proper judicial channels in a court of law, following established legal procedures, rather than through parliamentary proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a judge's resignation automatically stop impeachment proceedings?
Yes. Once a judge resigns and the President receives the resignation, impeachment proceedings become infructuous because the purpose of removal is no longer applicable.
When does a judicial resignation take effect?
A judicial resignation becomes immediately effective upon the President's receipt, unlike government employees whose resignations require formal acceptance.
Can a resigned judge still face criminal charges?
Yes. Section 2(c)(iv) of the Indian Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, includes judges as public servants eligible for prosecution through proper judicial channels.
Justice Markandey Katju retired from the Supreme Court in 2011. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.