Supreme Court notice to Centre on plea to deny perks to judges resigning to avoid removal procedure
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to deny retirement perks, amenities, and entitlements to constitutional functionaries who resign to avoid removal proceedings
The Bench comprised the Chief Justice of India and two other judges, hearing a petition filed by an individual petitioner
The petition specifically flags a pattern of constitutional functionaries resigning ahead of formal removal, gaining significance in light of the resignation of an Allahabad High Court judge who was facing an inquiry and removal proceedings before Parliament
The plea contends that functionaries who resign to pre-empt removal proceedings should not retain the post-retirement perks and facilities attached to the constitutional office they held
Article 124(4)/218 — Procedure for Removal of a Judge
Article 124(4) prescribes the procedure for removing a Supreme Court judge on the ground of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" — removal requires an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, followed by an order of the President. Article 218 extends the same procedure to High Court judges by applying Article 124's provisions.
The PIL's premise is that resignation before this constitutionally prescribed process concludes allows a judge to escape a formal finding of "proved misbehaviour," while still retaining benefits — which the petition argues defeats the purpose of Article 124(4)/218.
The "In-House Procedure" and Precedent of Resignation Before Removal
Since 1999, the higher judiciary has followed an internal "in-house procedure" (made public in 2014) allowing the Chief Justice to informally examine complaints against judges before/alongside any formal parliamentary process. Where a judge is found to have serious misconduct, the in-house process can recommend resignation, transfer, or referral for formal removal — but it has no binding legal force, so a judge can choose to resign rather than face the constitutional Article 124(4)/218 process, exiting with earned retirement benefits intact.
Key Details
- Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court) is the closest precedent: the Rajya Sabha passed a removal motion against him by special majority in August 2011 on charges of financial misappropriation, but he resigned in September 2011 before the Lok Sabha could vote — the removal process was never completed
- The current petition's context is the 2025 resignation of an Allahabad High Court judge who had been facing an in-house inquiry and prospective removal proceedings over recovery of unaccounted cash from his official residence
- No sitting Supreme Court or High Court judge has ever been removed via the Article 124(4)/218 process to date; every case that has come close has ended in resignation or the motion lapsing
The pending PIL asks the Court to address this structural gap — that resignation before a "proved misbehaviour" finding lets a judge avoid both formal removal and any consequence for pension/perks, since existing law (the Judges' pension and post-retirement benefits statutes) does not distinguish between a judge who retires in the ordinary course and one who resigns mid-inquiry.
Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Framework — Post-Retirement Perks
Retired Supreme Court and High Court judges' pensions, and post-retirement facilities (such as staff, security, and accommodation-related benefits for some categories of retired judges), are governed by statutes such as the Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958, and related rules — these do not currently condition benefits on the circumstances of a judge's exit from office.
Key Details
- Pension and service conditions of Supreme Court/High Court judges are protected under Article 125 (SC) and Article 221 (HC), which bar reduction of a judge's privileges to their disadvantage after appointment
- Because pension/perks are treated as an earned entitlement tied to years of service rather than to the manner of leaving office, a resignation (as opposed to removal) currently carries no statutory forfeiture of benefits
- This is analogous to (but legally distinct from) the debate around forfeiture of pension for civil servants dismissed for misconduct under service rules — the PIL essentially seeks a comparable consequence for judges who resign to dodge removal
The core ask in the PIL is to read into or add to this framework a disqualification: perks should follow only from an honourable exit, not resignation used as a shield against an ongoing removal process.
- Constitutional basis for judge removal: Article 124(4) (Supreme Court), extended to High Courts by Article 218
- Majority required: total membership majority + two-thirds majority of members present and voting, in each House
- Governing statute for the removal inquiry process: Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
- In-house procedure adopted: 1999 (guidelines made public in 2014)
- Closest historical precedent: Justice Soumitra Sen, Calcutta High Court — Rajya Sabha passed removal motion (special majority) in August 2011; resigned in September 2011 before Lok Sabha vote
- No Indian judge has ever been removed to date through the completed Article 124(4)/218 parliamentary process
- Current PIL: notice issued to the Union Government; matter arises in the context of the 2025 resignation of an Allahabad High Court judge facing an in-house inquiry and prospective removal proceedings