Parliament urged to avoid "Cadaver Synod" over Justice Yashwant Varma's impeachment report
The article argues against Parliament proceeding with the inquiry committee report on Justice Yashwant Varma after his resignation, likening it to the historical "Cadaver Synod." It emphasizes that a tribunal cannot justly judge someone no longer holding office. Justice Varma resigned with immediate effect on April 9, severing his constitutional link as a judge. Precedents from Justice P.D. Dinakaran and Justice Soumitra Sen's resignations show that impeachment proceedings end when a judge leaves office. The author contends that continuing the process would degrade Parliament and set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future Parliaments to posthumously arraign judges. Accountability for any criminal offense should be pursued through the criminal justice system, not parliamentary removal.
Key Points
- Parliament should not proceed with the impeachment report against Justice Yashwant Varma after his resignation.
- The act of judging a former officeholder is likened to the historical "Cadaver Synod," which was deemed unjust and degrading.
- Justice Varma's resignation on April 9 immediately severed his constitutional link as a judge.
- Precedents indicate that impeachment proceedings conclude upon a judge's resignation.
- Any criminal accountability should be handled by the criminal justice system, not through parliamentary removal proceedings for an office no longer held.
Exam Facts
- Historical reference: Cadaver Synod (January 897 CE, Pope Stephen VI and Pope Formosus).
- Justice Yashwant Varma resigned on April 9.
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 governs impeachment.
- Articles 121, 124(4), and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution are relevant.
- Precedents: Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2011) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.