Should resignation of a judge automatically abate an ongoing removal inquiry? Critically analyse.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 operationalises removal of judges under Articles 124(4) and 218, but is silent on a judge who resigns mid-inquiry [1]. The Yashwant Varma episode shows that while the motion must lapse, the inquiry should not automatically abate.

The case for automatic abatement

• Object achieved: removal is remedial, not punitive — its purpose is to vacate the office. Once the judge ceases to hold office, an address by both Houses to the President has no operative target [1].
• Textual limits: the Act's machinery is directed at "a Judge"; extending it to a private citizen stretches statutory language and consumes scarce parliamentary time.
• Natural justice: Varma withdrew from the proceedings on resignation (April 2026), so a continued inquiry risks a one-sided finding [4].
• Independence: unfettered freedom to resign shields judges from coercion by the political executive.

The case against automatic abatement

• Accountability escape: this is the third instance of a High Court judge resigning to forestall removal — a recurring design gap that lets exit substitute for answerability [5].
• Consequences survive office: resignation does not by itself affect pension, post-retirement appointments, or return to the Bar — Varma's Bar status turned "active" soon after quitting.
• Findings retain value: the Committee submitted its report to the Speaker on May 18, 2026 despite the resignation, preserving a record usable for criminal or disciplinary follow-up [5].
• Process already validated: the Supreme Court upheld the Speaker's inquiry in January 2026, indicating the proceeding's constitutional soundness [3]; the committee itself was properly constituted with an SC judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a senior advocate [2].

Resignation should therefore terminate the removal motion but not the fact-finding. Parliament should amend the 1968 Act to let an inquiry run to completion, with findings tabled and graded consequences — reviving the spirit of the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. Such calibration serves both judicial independence and probity in public life.