Markandey
Justice Yashwant Verma
Markandey Katju 14 Aug 2026

An impeachment motion was moved in the Indian Parliament against Justice Yashwant Verma, then Judge of the Delhi High Court, who had been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, when corruption charges were made against him.
Under the Indian Judges ( Inquiry ) Act, 1968, when an impeachment motion against a Supreme Court or High Court is moved by the requisite number of MPs ( either 100 of the Lok Sabha, the lower House of the Indian Parliament, or 50 by the Rajya Sabha, the upper House ) the motion is admitted, and sent to a 3 member committee constituted under section 3(2) of the Act.. If the committee finds the charges proved, it sends the motion to Parliament, which decides whether to impeach the Judge or not by a two third majority of each House, vide Article 218 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India.
While the 3 member committee constituted under the Judges ( Inquiry ) Act was considering the matter, Justice Verma sent his resignation to the President of India, who received it.
Now in the case of resignation by a Supreme Court or High Court Judge, which is sent to the President and received by him/her, there is no requirement under the Constitution for the President to accept the resignation to make it effective ( unlike in the case of a government servant where acceptance of the resignation by the government is necessary to make it effective.). The resignation by a Supreme Court or High Court Judge is effective the moment it is received by the President. Acceptance by the President, or notification of the resignation in the official gazette, is not necessary to make it effective..
Once the resignation is received by the President, further proceedings in the impeachment proceedings become infructuous, since the purpose of impeachment is to remove a Judge from office. When he has resigned, and is no longer holding the office of a Judge, where is the question of his removal from office ? 
One may recall the instance of Justice P.D. Dinakaran, then Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court, who had been earlier a Judge of the Madras High Court, and then Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, against whom impeachment proceedings were initiated in Parliament on corruption charges, but who resigned before they could be completed, and the proceedings were then dropped as the matter had become infructuous.
Surprisingly, however, the 3 member committee, even after Justice Verma's resignation, continued its proceedings, and has submitted a report to Parliament holding Justice Verma guilty.
It is surprising that the members of the 3 member committee, one of whom is a Supreme Court Judge, another a Chief Justice of a High Court, and the third a distinguished jurist, do not know the law on this point.
I am not expressing any final opinion whether Justice Verma can be prosecuted on charges of corruption in a court of law. Section 2(c)(iv) of the Indian Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 includes Judges in the definition of public servants who can be prosecuted. But even if that is done, it has to be done in a court of law, not by Parliament, and after following the legal procedure.

By Justice Markandey Katju, former Judge, Indian Supreme Court


Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
SAARTH A SoOLEGAL Technologies Initiative
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com