The resignation of Justice Yashwant Varma – in whose Delhi residence wads of cash were reportedly found – is not merely an individual act of exit; it is a revealing stress test of India’s judicial accountability framework. At first glance, stepping down appears to be an acceptance of moral responsibility. In practice, it exposes how easily formal scrutiny can be short-circuited at the highest levels of the judiciary.

India’s constitutional design makes removing a sitting judge deliberately difficult. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, the process requires a parliamentary mechanism that is both slow and exacting, intended to protect judicial independence from political vendetta. Yet this very safeguard contains a flaw: it collapses the moment a judge resigns. The proceedings lapse, the institutional momentum dissipates, and the burden shifts elsewhere. That “elsewhere” is the uncertain terrain of criminal investigation. Once the resignation is accepted by the President of India, the protective shield afforded to a sitting judge weakens, allowing investigative agencies to step in.

But this transition is neither automatic nor guaranteed. It depends on executive........

© The Statesman