The power of a judge to resign at will protects judicial independence but can also be misused to evade accountability. Discuss with reference to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Q. The power of a judge to resign at will protects judicial independence but can also be misused to evade accountability. Discuss with reference to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 124(4), read with Article 218, makes removal of a judge deliberately difficult, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 operationalises it through a motion, a statutory inquiry committee and an address by both Houses [1]. Yet nothing in this scheme bars a judge from resigning midway — a freedom that is simultaneously a shield for independence and a possible escape route.

How resignation at will safeguards judicial independence - Under Article 217(1)(a) a High Court judge may resign by writing under his hand to the President; no executive consent is required, so a judge can never be held in office under pressure. - The 1968 Act's high threshold — inquiry by a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a jurist, followed by a special majority — insulates judges from politically motivated removal [1]; voluntary exit complements this security of tenure. - Justice Yashwant Varma's resignation of 10 April 2026, addressed directly to the President with immediate effect [2], illustrates that the decision rests with the judge alone.

How it can be misused to evade accountability - Timing defeats process: the resignation followed the Speaker's constitution of the three-member statutory committee in August 2025 [3] and the Supreme Court's January 2026 order upholding that inquiry [4]. - Removal is the sole constitutional sanction for proved misbehaviour; once the office is vacated, the parliamentary address has no target, and disqualification from practice or benefits does not follow automatically. - The Act is silent on abatement. The committee nonetheless submitted its report to the Speaker on 18 May 2026 [5] — a novel step whose legal effect remains untested.

Judicial independence and judicial accountability are complementary, not competing, constitutional values. The way forward lies in amending the 1968 Act to expressly provide that an inquiry continues and its report is tabled despite resignation, coupled with a codified judicial standards framework and a strengthened in-house procedure — so that the freedom to demit office never becomes a licence to escape scrutiny.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — India Code, Government of India — statutory removal procedure, inquiry committee composition 2. Allahabad High Court Justice Yashwant Varma resigns amid impeachment proceedings — News Services Division, Prasar Bharati (newsonair.gov.in) — resignation dated 10 April 2026 to President Droupadi Murmu 3. LS Speaker Om Birla constitutes 3-member committee to probe allegations against HC judge Justice Yashwant Varma — newsonair.gov.in — committee constituted August 2025 4. SC upholds Lok Sabha Speaker's inquiry against Justice Varma — newsonair.gov.in — Supreme Court order of 16 January 2026 5. Inquiry Committee submits report on Justice Yashwant Varma to Speaker Om Birla — Supreme Court Observer — report submitted 18 May 2026 despite resignation