Judges Removal in India: Constitutional Process, Challenges, and the Justice Yashwant Varma Case

Introduction: Judicial Accountability in a Constitutional Democracy

The debate around Judges Removal in India is not new, but it has gained renewed urgency in 2026. The judiciary is often described as the guardian of the Constitution, the final arbiter of rights, and the ultimate check on executive and legislative excess. However, with great power comes the equally critical need for accountability.

Judicial independence is essential, but independence without accountability risks eroding public trust. In a country like India, where courts are often the last hope for justice, even the perception of judicial misconduct can have far-reaching consequences.

The recent controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma has once again highlighted a fundamental question:

What happens when a judge resigns before removal proceedings are completed?

This is not just a procedural issue, it directly affects transparency, public confidence, and the credibility of democratic institutions.

Why Judges Removal Matters in India

The removal of judges is not simply about punishment, it is about preserving institutional integrity.

Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts wield enormous authority. Their decisions influence governance, fundamental rights, economic policies, and even international relations. Because of this immense power, the Constitution ensures:

• Judges are protected from arbitrary removal
• But also held accountable for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”

This delicate balance defines the entire framework of Judges Removal in India.

Without a credible removal mechanism:

• Public trust declines
• Judicial legitimacy weakens
• Democracy itself suffers

Constitutional Framework for Judges Removal in India

Article 124(4): The Core Provision

The Constitution lays down a strict and highly structured process for removing a Supreme Court judge under Article 124(4).

A judge can only be removed if:

• Both Houses of Parliament pass a motion
• The motion is supported by:
• A majority of the total membership of the House
• At least two-thirds of members present and voting

This ensures removal is not politically motivated and requires broad consensus.

Article 124(5): Power to Regulate the Process

Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to create laws governing the removal process. This led to the enactment of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which operationalizes the constitutional provision.

Article 217: High Court Judges

For High Court judges, Article 217 provides a similar mechanism. The removal process remains consistent across the judiciary, ensuring uniformity and fairness.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Operational Mechanism

The Constitution provides the framework, but the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 gives it life.

Purpose of the Act

The Act ensures:

• Structured investigation
• Fair hearing
• Evidence-based findings

It protects judges from frivolous allegations while ensuring serious charges are examined thoroughly.

Inquiry Committee Structure

Once a motion is admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is formed, typically consisting of:

• A Supreme Court judge
• A Chief Justice of a High Court
• A distinguished jurist

This composition ensures neutrality, expertise, and credibility.

Two-Stage Process of Judges Removal in India

1. Inquiry Stage (Judicial Process)

This is the most critical phase.

The committee:

• Examines evidence
• Hears witnesses
• Evaluates allegations

If charges are not proved, the process ends here. If charges are proved, the matter moves to Parliament.

2. Parliamentary Stage (Political Process)

At this stage:

• Parliament debates the findings
• Votes on the removal motion

Only if the special majority is achieved:

• The motion is sent to the President
• The judge is officially removed

This two-step mechanism ensures legal scrutiny + democratic legitimacy.

Case Study: Justice Yashwant Varma (2025–2026)

Background of the Case

In March 2025, a fire incident at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence reportedly led to the discovery of large amounts of unaccounted cash. The incident triggered nationwide debate and raised serious concerns about judicial ethics.

An in-house inquiry was followed by:

• A formal impeachment motion
• Supported by over 140 Members of Parliament

This indicated the seriousness of the allegations.

Resignation Before Conclusion

Before the inquiry process could conclude, Justice Varma resigned.

This created a major legal and ethical dilemma:

• The removal process became infructuous
• Parliamentary proceedings stopped
• No final findings were formally recorded

Impact of Resignation

The consequences were significant:

• The judge retained pension and post-retirement benefits
• No official conclusion on misconduct was reached
• Public clarity on allegations remained absent

This raised a critical issue: Can resignation be used as a tool to escape accountability?

Legal Ambiguity: What Happens After Resignation?

The biggest gap in the current framework is this:

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 does NOT clarify whether inquiry continues after resignation.

This creates two competing interpretations:

1. Inquiry Should Stop

• Removal becomes irrelevant once the judge leaves office
• The purpose of the process is removal, not investigation

2. Inquiry Should Continue

• Public interest demands truth
• Accountability should not end with resignation

Role of the Speaker

Currently, the continuation of proceedings often depends on:

• The discretion of the Speaker or Chairman

This leads to:

• Inconsistency
• Lack of transparency
• Institutional uncertainty

Key Challenges in Removal Of Judges In India

1. Public Interest vs Procedural Closure

When inquiries stop midway:

• Evidence is never fully examined
• Public remains uninformed

This damages trust in the system.

2. Incentive to Avoid Accountability

If resignation halts proceedings:

• Judges may step down strategically
• Avoid formal findings of guilt
• Retain benefits and reputation

This creates a moral hazard.

3. Lack of Clear Precedent

India has very few cases of judicial removal. As a result:

• Legal clarity is limited
• Institutional responses vary

4. Rule-Based vs Discretionary Framework

Interestingly:

• Rules allow inquiry even if a judge does not appear

So the question arises:Why should resignation stop the process?

Judicial Independence vs Accountability

Why Removal is Difficult

The Constitution intentionally makes removal hard to:

• Prevent political misuse
• Protect judicial independence

This ensures judges can:

• Deliver fearless judgments
• Act without pressure

When Protection Becomes a Loophole

However:

• Excessive protection can weaken accountability
• Resignation loopholes undermine the system

Balance is essential.

Comparative Perspective: Global Practices

In countries like the United States:

• Impeachment processes can continue even after resignation
• The goal is to establish accountability, not just remove from office

India lacks such clarity, highlighting the need for reform.

Reforms Needed in Removal Of Judges In India

1. Amend the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The law should clearly state:

• Whether inquiry continues after resignation
• How findings should be recorded

2. Separate Accountability from Removal

The process should ensure:

• Even if removal becomes irrelevant
• Truth-finding continues

3. Protect Public Interest

Institutional credibility requires:

• Transparency
• Final reports
• Public disclosure of findings

4. Strengthen Institutional Mechanisms

Judicial accountability should:

• Complement independence
• Not weaken it

Conclusion

The debate on Removal Of Judges In India has entered a new phase in 2026. The Justice Yashwant Varma case has exposed a significant gap in the legal framework one that allows resignation to potentially derail accountability.

The issue is not merely legal, it is about:

• Public trust
• Institutional credibility
• Democratic integrity

India must now decide:

Should procedural technicalities override the pursuit of truth?

Or should the system evolve to ensure accountability, even beyond resignation?

Addressing this gap is essential for strengthening the judiciary and maintaining faith in the rule of law.

FAQs

1. What is the process of Judges Removal in India?

It involves a two-step process: inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, followed by a parliamentary vote with a special majority.

2. What happens if a judge resigns during removal proceedings?

Currently, the process stops, but there is no clear legal provision addressing this situation.

3. Can judges retain benefits after resignation?

Yes, resignation allows retention of pension and benefits, unlike removal.

4. Why is removal so difficult in India?

To protect judicial independence and prevent political misuse.

5. What reforms are needed?

Clear legal provisions on post-resignation inquiries and stronger accountability mechanisms.

Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias

Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias

The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH