Justice Varma Case & Judicial Removal | UPSC GS-2 | UPSCPDF

UPSCPDF Editorial Analysis: can Parliament act on the Justice Varma report after his resignation? Article 121, removal vs resignation — UPSC GS-2 guide.

Key Takeaways | The Core Debate (Two Views) | Quick Facts Box | Evolution of Judicial Accountability in India | The Two Questions at the Heart of the Case | Constitutional & Legal Foundations | Comparative Practice | The Architecture of Judicial Accountability | Landmark Judgments to Remember | Governance & Global Lenses | Marks Breakdown | More Mains Angles (Multi-GS) | Additional Essay Angles | Key Actors & Stakeholders | Quick Revision Tags

When a judge resigns before an inquiry report reaches Parliament, can the House still act? A GS-2 deep dive into Article 121, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the fault line between judicial accountability and judicial independence. The Lok Sabha Speaker has announced that the report of the inquiry committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, into allegations against former Justice Yashwant Varma will be tabled when Parliament reconvenes on 20 July 2026. The committee submitted its report on 18 May 2026. The complication is that Justice Varma had already resigned with immediate effect on 9 April 2026 — surrendering his office, salary and official residence and reviving his enrolment at the Bar — before the report was finalised. This raises a sharp constitutional question: can Parliament exercise its removal jurisdiction under Article 124(4) (applied to High Court judges through Articles 217 and 218) against a person who is no longer a judge? A widely discussed