Supreme Court notice to Centre on plea to deny perks to judges resigning to avoid removal procedure

The Supreme Court on Thursday (September 3, 2026) sought the Union government’s response to a writ petition seeking a direction that constitutional functionaries, including judges, who resign rather than face a transparent enquiry for misconduct, should be denied retirement perks and benefits.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued notice to the Centre on the petition filed by Pratik Vora, who submitted that “resignations to avoid facing a transparent procedure of removal come only because the constitutional functionaries are fully aware that even after their resignations, they will be entitled to all perks and benefits which they would have got had they completed their tenure”.

The fact said the root cause of unconstitutional and unprincipled resignations by certain constitutional authorities is the complete absence of any deterrent, monetary or otherwise.

The petition gains significance in the context of the recent resignation of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, who was facing an inquiry and removal proceedings by the Parliament after sacks of half-burnt cash were allegedly found at his official residence when he was serving as a judge in the Delhi High Court.

“If a constitutional functionary is either elected or appointed for a particular tenure, it is his constitutional obligation to complete the tenure and discharge the constitutional obligation imposed by such election or appointment,” the petition said.

While these functionaries were otherwise protected from “arbitrary removals on the whims of any individual or on petty grounds”, they had equally a liability to complete their designated tenure in office or face the “transparent procedure of removal”.

“An easy option of resigning to avoid removal is neither contemplated nor desirable. These kinds of resignation defeat the confidence which the Constitution places upon the high constitutional functionaries,” the petition said.

Resignation to avoid a transparent process of removal amounted to a betrayal of the probity in public life expected from these functionaries, the petition pointed out

“In case of Judges occupying constitutional position, the proceedings under the Judges Inquiry Act are contemplated and for other constitutional functionaries, other procedural requirements for their removal are contemplated… Those constitutional functionaries who tender their resignations, whether to avoid any proceedings of removal or proceedings for no confidence motion, should not be entitled to the perks and all other incidental facilities attached to the constitutional office from which they have resigned,” the petition said.