Judicial inquiry's fate after judge's resignation: The Yashwant Varma probe
The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited the debate on whether a statutory inquiry against a judge should cease upon their resignation. Drawing on past cases like Justices P.D. Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen, the article argues that such inquiries, being statutory procedures for establishing facts and guilt, should continue irrespective of the judge's tenure. It asserts that allowing inquiries to terminate with resignation undermines accountability, enables judges to unilaterally abort proceedings, and prevents formal findings, contrary to constitutional provisions and Supreme Court observations on the investigative stage being judicial in character.
Key Points
- The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma raises questions about the continuation of statutory inquiries against judges.
- Past precedents regarding judicial resignations during inquiries have been inconsistent and lack clear resolution.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Supreme Court rulings suggest that the investigative stage of an inquiry is statutory and should not collapse with resignation.
- Allowing inquiries to terminate upon resignation undermines judicial accountability and allows judges to avoid formal findings.
- The Constitution's framers intended safeguards against arbitrary removal, not easy exits from accountability.
Exam Facts
- Justice Yashwant Varma's resignation is the central case discussed.
- Previous cases of Justice P.D. Dinakaran and Justice Soumitra Sen are cited as precedents.
- Article 124(5) of the Constitution pertains to laws regulating investigation and removal of judges.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, governs investigative work for judicial misconduct.
- Supreme Court cases like Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs. Union of India (1991) and Sarojini Ramaswami vs. Union of India (1992) are referenced.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.