India’s Parliament should not stage its “Cadaver Synod” over Justice Yashwant Varma’s report
Parliament should not continue impeachment proceedings against Justice Yashwant Varma after his resignation.
- The Lok Sabha Speaker plans to table an inquiry report when Parliament reconvenes.
- Justice Yashwant Varma resigned with immediate effect, gave up judicial privileges, and stopped drawing judicial salary.
- Article 121 is presented as allowing discussion of judicial conduct only in the context of a removal process.
Parliament’s handling of Justice Yashwant Varma’s resignation raises a constitutional question on the limits of impeachment. Parliament should table the inquiry report and close the matter, rather than continue a removal process that no longer has a sitting judge to remove.
The Lok Sabha Speaker plans to table a report of an inquiry committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 when Parliament reconvenes. Justice Yashwant Varma resigned with immediate effect, gave up judicial privileges, and stopped drawing judicial salary. On that basis, he is no longer a judge in the constitutional sense.
UPSC may ask how Article 121, Article 217, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 fit together in a judge-removal case, and whether parliamentary action can continue after resignation. The issue also tests the trade-off between judicial accountability and judicial independence.
Related dispatches
