The Lok Sabha Committee on Wednesday indicted Justice Yashwant Varma on all articles of charge, with the panel discovering that substantial unexplained forex was discovered at his official residence and that though the police did not protect the burnt forex after its discovery, the decide gave a deceptive and evasive clarification.
Justice Varma has been embroiled in controversy since March 2025, when it emerged that burnt bundles of Rs. 500 notes had been discovered on the storeroom in his official residence in Delhi throughout a hearth incident. This instantly drew the eye of the Supreme Courtroom Collegium, which transferred him from the Delhi Excessive Courtroom to his mother or father courtroom, the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom. What adopted subsequent was the Supreme Courtroom’s in-house procedure(defined here) headed by the Chief Justice of India(then CJI Sanjeev Khanna), as laid down in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).
The in-house procedure discovered him prima facie responsible, and the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister by the then CJI Khanna. This grew to become the premise for the removal motion in each Homes of Parliament. A three-member committee was constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker below the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 in August 2025 to inquire into the “misbehaviour” of the decide. Nonetheless, earlier than it may conclude, Justice Varma tendered his resignation to the President in April 2026. However, the committee continued and reached its conclusion.
Amidst all this, the problem arose as to why the President had not notified the acceptance of Justice Varma’s resignation. The controversy grew extra when the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom’s web site continued to indicate him as a sitting decide.
LiveLaw spoke to Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who was the aiding counsel for the in-house inquiry committee headed by Justice P.B. Sawant below the Act, 1968, which inquired into allegations in opposition to Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Courtroom.
He advised us the authorized place is obvious; it does not matter whether or not the resignation has been notified or not; it comes into impact relying on whether or not the decide has resigned with fast impact or with a potential date. He identified that since, on this case, Justice Varma resigned with fast impact, it has come into impact on the date of the resignation.
Ramachandran stated: “A resignation of a decide does not require to be accepted. He[judge] can resign from a potential date, or he can resign with fast impact.”
He reasoned that the President does not have the facility to reject the resignation as a result of, if it had been in any other case, the President would have rejected Justice Varma’s resignation in order that the decide would stay in place and solely be eliminated by way of the Parliamentary course of.
He added: “The truth that it has not been notified[by the President] doesn’t suggest his[Justice Varma’s] resignation isn’t efficient.”
Much like Justice Varma, Justice P.D. Dinakaran confronted allegations of large-scale corruption when he was beneficial for elevation to the Supreme Courtroom in 2009. He was finally transferred to the Sikkim Excessive Courtroom as its Chief Justice. Nonetheless, this did not cease a removing movement in opposition to him, and finally a three-member committee was constituted by the Rajya Sabha Speaker, Hamid Ansari.
Only a day earlier than the committee’s first official sitting, Justice Dinakaran resigned. Nonetheless, he had a “change of coronary heart” and withdrew the resignation inside a month. However he was knowledgeable that his resignation took impact instantly.
The problem arose when one of many committee members, eminent Professor Mohan Gopal, wrote to the opposite members requesting that the inquiry ought to proceed. The committee consisted of Justice JS Khehar, who was at the moment elevated to the Supreme Courtroom, so there was a emptiness which needed to be stuffed. However the Speaker buried the proceedings, saying that the decide had resigned.
LiveLaw spoke to Professor Mohan Gopal, who reiterated that the President has no position relating to the resignation of a decide. He acknowledged that after the decide resigns, it comes into fast impact, as what’s warranted below Article 217. Whether or not the President has notified it or not does not have an effect on the statutory requirement of resignation.
Nonetheless, he remarked that it’s extremely “uncommon” for the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom to not replace the web site. “Often when a decide retires, the web site is up to date inside hours, if not inside minutes, as a result of it impacts the seniority. If the web site has not been up to date, Justice Atul Sreedharan could be proven as no. 5 whereas Justice Varma could be proven as no. 4 on the extent of seniority.”
As of now, the Excessive Courtroom’s web site certainly exhibits Justice Varma as no.4 on the extent of seniority.
Professor Gopal additionally revealed that there have been studies that Justice Varma continues to obtain protocols and wage as given to a sitting decide. On this regard, he urged that the web site ought to be up to date instantly to make sure transparency.
What’s the legislation on a decide’s resignation?
As per the Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra(1978) judgment, the Supreme Courtroom defined {that a} Excessive Courtroom or a Supreme Courtroom decide can resign both with a potential date or with fast impact. If he resigns with fast impact, it comes into impact instantly. Nonetheless, a resignation mentioning a future date of resignation is merely a “proposal or discover of intention to resign”, and it may be withdrawn earlier than the due date.
On this case, Justice Satish Chandra, a decide of the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom, wrote a letter to the President on Might 7, 1997, intimating his resignation from the workplace with impact from August 1, 1977. Nonetheless, on July 15, 1977, he once more addressed a letter withdrawing his resignation. When he continued in workplace, an advocate filed an Article 226 petition, contending that Justice Chandra’s resignation was ultimate and irrevocable as per Article 217(1)(a) of the Indian Structure and subsequently he was not allowed to carry the workplace anymore.
The Allahabad Excessive Courtroom allowed the petition and held that the decide was not competent to revoke his resignation letter. Towards this order, Justice Chandra appealed earlier than the Supreme Courtroom. The five-judge Structure Bench held in favour of Justice Chandra.
The Supreme Courtroom defined the legislation relevant to the resignation of Excessive Courtroom judges. It stated that the final administrative legislation rule relevant to authorities servants and constitutional functionaries is that the authority will be notified in writing that an individual needs to resign from his workplace from a future specified date.
In such instances, it may be withdrawn by him at any time earlier than it turns into efficient. In instances of presidency servants, the conventional rule means that the termination turns into efficient when it’s accepted by the suitable authority. Nonetheless, within the case of a Excessive Courtroom decide, who’s a constitutional functionary, his termination turns into efficient on the date from which he, of his personal volition, chooses to stop the workplace. It is because there aren’t any qualifiers added to the resignation of a Excessive Courtroom decide, and it’s his unilateral proper.
The related provision is Article 217(1)(a), which merely says: “a Decide might, by writing below his hand addressed to the President, resign his workplace.”
On this case, Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali dissented and acknowledged {that a} decide’s resignation does not depend upon acceptance by the President, because it operates “ex proprio vigore” that’s, by itself drive, although the resignation might take impact on a future date.
Through the listening to of this case, each side relied on the identical level however argued it in a different way. The decide argued that because the provision does not expressly point out withdrawal, it may well’t come into impact earlier than the desired date. The opposite facet argued that the very categorical omission means that the resignation turns into irrevocable as soon as three circumstances are fulfilled: the decide executes a “writing below his hand”, “addressed to the President” and he mentions “resign his workplace”.
The Supreme Courtroom acknowledged that in Jai Ram v. Union of India, it laid down a rule that it’s open for a authorities servant, who has expressed a need to retire from service, to alter his thoughts and subsequently ask for cancellation. That’s, earlier than the authority accepts his resignation or as a result of the due date expires, he has ‘locus poenitentiae’ (place of repentance).
“It should bear repetition that the final precept is that within the absence of a authorized, contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘potential’ resignation will be withdrawn at any time earlier than it turns into efficient, and it turns into efficient when it operates to terminate the employment or the office- tenure of the resignor. This common rule is equally relevant to Authorities servants and constitutional functionaries.”
The bench added: “Within the case of a Decide of a Excessive Courtroom, who’s a constitutional functionary and below Proviso (a) to Article 217(1) has a unilateral proper, or privilege to resign his workplace, his resignation turns into efficient and tenure terminated on the date from which he, of his personal volition, chooses to stop workplace. If by way of the writing below his hand addressed to the President, he resigns in praesanti, the resignation terminates his office- tenure forthwith, and can’t subsequently, be withdrawn or revoked thereafter. However, if he by such Writing chooses to resign from a future date, the act resigning workplace isn’t full as a result of it doesn’t terminate his tenure earlier than such date and the Decide can at any time earlier than the arrival of that potential date on which it was meant to be efficient, withdraw it, as a result of the Structure doesn’t bar such withdrawal.”
Ought to resignation of a decide shut the inquiry?
Typically an interconnected query arises as as to if, in instances the place the inquiry below the Judges Inquiry Act has been initiated for removing, the resignation of a decide ought to preempt the working of the committee.
Ramachandran says it should not pre-empt the committee and appreciated that the committee in Justice Varma’s case went forward with its findings. He stated: “A decide shouldn’t be allowed to preempt the findings of an inquiry by resigning. By resigning, in fact, he preempts a removing movement…A decide cannot be allowed to forestall a discovering from being rendered after a committee has been arrange with sitting judges and a senior advocate. They labour over the matter and simply to preempt an hostile discovering, in case you resign, I feel the committee has performed the best factor to present its findings. “
Professor Gopal identified that there are two limbs to the Judges Inquiry Act. One considerations the inquiry into the “misbehaviour” and the second considerations the process for removing, which is initiated as a consequence of the primary. He acknowledged that the primary limb is not affected by the resignation of a decide. It is just the removing proceedings which might’t be initiated because the decide has resigned. “I’m comfortable that the committee went forward with the findings. As soon as the committee is appointed, it has to submit the report. The committee’s mandate was to inquire into the misbehaviour of the decide. The primary limb is accomplished.”
He additionally beneficial that the resignation ought to be addressed to the Chief Justice of India slightly than the chief head of the nation with a purpose to preserve judicial independence.
