Conclusion

• The trial of Pope Formosus during the Cadaver Synod of 897 CE remains one of history's most extraordinary examples of institutional excess.
• Although the pope had been dead for months, his body was exhumed, dressed in papal robes, placed on trial, declared guilty, and symbolically punished.
• Instead of restoring justice, the proceedings damaged the credibility of the Church and became a lasting reminder that legal authority loses legitimacy when exercised without a meaningful constitutional purpose.
• This historical episode provides an apt analogy for the constitutional debate surrounding the impeachment proceedings initiated against former Justice Yashwant Varma after his resignation.

Constitutional Purpose of Impeachment

• The Indian Constitution envisages impeachment solely as a mechanism to remove an unfit judge from constitutional office.
• Article 121 permits Parliament to discuss the conduct of judges only during proceedings seeking their removal.
• Similarly, Articles 124(4) and 217, read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, establish that removal from office is the only constitutional consequence of impeachment.
• Once a judge resigns, the constitutional office ceases to exist. As a result, the machinery created for removal loses its legal purpose because there is no office left to vacate.
• Continuing the process after resignation would therefore extend constitutional authority beyond its intended limits.

Resignation as a Constitutional Act

• A judge occupies a constitutional office rather than an ordinary government post.
• The Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978), held that a judge's resignation is a unilateral constitutional act requiring no acceptance from the President or any executive authority.
• The constitutional relationship ends immediately upon resignation.
• This principle has also been reflected in constitutional practice.
• The impeachment proceedings against Justice P.D. Dinakaran ended after his resignation, while the proceedings against Justice Soumitra Sen also came to a close once he resigned despite the Rajya Sabha having already adopted the removal motion.
• These precedents affirm that resignation extinguishes Parliament's jurisdiction to continue removal proceedings.

Implications for Judicial Independence

• Allowing impeachment proceedings to continue after resignation would create a dangerous constitutional precedent.
• If Parliament retains authority over a resigned judge, there would be little constitutional basis to distinguish such cases from those involving retired or even deceased judges.
• Future legislatures could revisit judicial decisions delivered years earlier and initiate proceedings motivated by changing political circumstances.
• Such a practice would weaken judicial independence, disturb the separation of powers, and expose judges to the fear of post-retirement political retaliation.
• Constitutional democracies depend not only upon independent judges but also upon institutions that respect the constitutional limits of their own authority.

Institutional Dignity and Constitutional Morality

• Every constitutional institution derives its legitimacy from acting within the limits prescribed by the Constitution.
• Constitutional morality requires Parliament to exercise restraint even where political considerations encourage further action.
• Symbolic proceedings incapable of producing any constitutional consequence risk transforming legal processes into political theatre.
• The lesson of the Cadaver Synod demonstrates that institutions often suffer greater damage than the individuals they seek to condemn when authority is exercised without purpose.
• Respect for the rule of law requires adherence not only to constitutional text but also to the principles underlying constitutional governance.

Accountability Beyond Impeachment

• Ending impeachment proceedings does not imply the absence of accountability.
• Allegations involving criminal misconduct remain subject to criminal investigation, prosecution, and trial under the ordinary legal process.
• Likewise, questions relating to pension, retirement benefits, or other statutory entitlements may be examined in accordance with applicable law.
• The constitutional limitation applies only to impeachment because its exclusive function is the removal of a sitting constitutional functionary.
• Once that office has already been vacated, ordinary legal institutions, not Parliament, become the appropriate forum for determining liability. 

Conclusion

• The enduring significance of the Cadaver Synod lies in its warning against institutions exercising power after its constitutional purpose has disappeared.
• Justice is not strengthened by symbolic proceedings that cannot produce meaningful legal consequences.
• Respect for constitutional morality, judicial independence, the rule of law, and the separation of powers requires Parliament to recognise that impeachment ends with resignation.