Can You Resign Your Way Out of Impeachment? The Justice Varma Question
Parliament tabling a removal report against a judge who has already quit reopens a gap at the heart of India's judicial-accountability machinery
What happened
Polity questions on the judiciary increasingly probe the gap between the design of accountability and its practice. The Varma case is a perfect vehicle: the Constitution's only formal tool against an errant judge is removal — a slow, political, high-threshold process — and a well-timed resignation can defeat it, leaving the question of misconduct unresolved. Diagnosing that gap, rather than reciting the removal procedure, is what a strong answer does.
The Justice Varma Case: Key Timeline
Judicial Accountability — Timeline
Source: Supreme Court Observer
A judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court can be removed only through the constitutional process of 'removal' (popularly called impeachment) under Article 124(4) for SC judges, extended to HC judges by Article 218, on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'. The procedure is detailed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: a removal motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members is admitted by the Speaker/Chairman, who then constitutes a three-member inquiry committee (a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist). If the committee finds the judge guilty, each House must pass the motion by a special majority — a majority of the total membership of the House and not less than two-thirds of members present and voting — after which the President issues the removal order.
●No Indian judge has ever been removed through a completed process; several have resigned midway.
●Separately, the judiciary has an informal 'in-house procedure' for preliminary inquiry into complaints against sitting judges.
●A High Court judge may resign by writing to the President under Article 217(1)(a).
India's only formal check on a corrupt judge is a slow, super-majority removal process — so a timely resignation can end the proceedings before misconduct is ever formally 'proved'.
◎ In Simple Words
A judge is supposed to be honest and above suspicion. In this case, a lot of burnt cash was found at a judge's house, which raised serious questions. Parliament has a special, difficult process to remove a judge for misconduct — it needs big majorities and takes time. Before that process could finish, the judge resigned. Now Parliament has released its inquiry report anyway, asking a tricky question: if a judge quits, should the investigation into what he did just stop, or should it continue so the truth is officially recorded? It matters because letting judges 'quit and escape' weakens trust in the courts.
Factual Pointers
Practice · 2 questions
With reference to the removal of a High Court judge in India, consider the following statements:
1. The grounds are 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'.
2. The procedure is laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
3. The final removal motion must be passed by a simple majority in both Houses.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
How many members must sign a motion for the removal of a judge for it to be admitted in the Lok Sabha?
Mains Practice Questions
"India's judicial-accountability architecture allows a judge to resign his way out of a removal proceeding." Critically examine this gap and suggest reforms that strengthen accountability without eroding judicial independence. (250 words, GS2)
Discuss the constitutional procedure for the removal of a judge in India and evaluate why it has never resulted in a completed removal. (250 words, GS2)
"Accountability is a public interest that should survive an individual's resignation." Comment in the context of proceedings against a judge who has already quit. (150 words, GS4)
Frequently Asked
· People also askWhat is the Justice Yashwant Varma case about?
It concerns removal proceedings against a High Court judge after large amounts of burnt cash were found at his official Delhi residence in March 2025. He resigned in April 2026, and the Lok Sabha Speaker later tabled the inquiry report despite the resignation.
GS2 · PolityIt raises a novel question: can Parliament complete removal proceedings against a judge who has already quit, or does resignation extinguish accountability?
SOURCE Supreme Court Observer; Lok Sabha Secretariat
How is a judge removed (impeached) in India?
Under Articles 124(4) and 218 with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: a motion signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, an inquiry by a three-member committee (a SC judge, a HC Chief Justice and a jurist), and passage by a special majority in both Houses before the President orders removal.
GS2The sole ground is 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'. The special majority — a majority of the total membership plus two-thirds of those present and voting — is deliberately high to protect judicial independence.
SOURCE Constitution of India; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Has any judge ever been removed in India?
No. No judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court has ever been removed through a completed constitutional process. Several proceedings were initiated but collapsed at the parliamentary voting stage or ended when the judge resigned.
GS2The closest cases failed at the voting stage. This history is exactly why a timely resignation reliably forestalls removal — the gap the Varma case exposes.
SOURCE Supreme Court Observer
Can a judge avoid impeachment by resigning?
In practice, yes — a High Court judge can resign to the President under Article 217(1)(a), which can make removal proceedings moot. Justice Varma is the third such judge to resign before the process concluded, which is why the tabling of the report is significant.
GS2 · GS4The unresolved question is whether Parliament's power is purely remedial (removal) or also declaratory — able to record a finding of misconduct even after a judge leaves office, which would restore deterrence.
SOURCE Supreme Court Observer
What majority is needed to remove a judge?
A special majority in each House — a majority of the total membership of that House plus at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. This deliberately high bar protects judicial independence from ordinary political majorities.
GS2After the NJAC was struck down in 2015, no comprehensive statutory oversight body replaced it, leaving judicial accountability dependent on this rarely-completed removal route and an informal in-house procedure.
SOURCE Constitution of India, Article 124(4)