Search results for: “”

Mentor’s Comment

Judicial independence and accountability are equally important under the Constitution. The impeachment process was meant to protect judges from political pressure while allowing removal in cases of proven misconduct. Recent events, however, show a clear gap between law and practice. Discretion given to the Speaker or Chairman has created a loophole that can block the removal of even an erring judge.

Why in the News?

In December 2025, Lok Sabha MPs submitted a notice to remove a High Court judge for misconduct. Although the required number of signatures was met, the process stalled because the Speaker can admit or reject the motion. This reflects a long-standing institutional failure: no judge has ever been removed through impeachment despite repeated allegations. The episode shows how a constitutionally strict removal process can be blocked at the initial procedural stage itself.

What is the constitutional framework for removal of judges?

1. Constitutional Basis: Articles 124(4) and 217 mandate removal only through a special majority of Parliament on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
2. Procedural Authority: Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to legislate procedures for investigation and presentation of an address to the President.
3. Statutory Instrument: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 operationalises this power by prescribing inquiry procedures and thresholds.
4. High Threshold: Removal requires a majority of total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting in each House.

How does the Judges (Inquiry) Act structure the removal process?

1. Notice Requirement: Admission of a motion requires signatures of 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
2. Speaker/Chairman’s Role: The Presiding Officer may either admit or refuse to admit the motion.
3. Inquiry Committee: Upon admission, a three-member committee (Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist) investigates charges.
4. Final Stage: Only after a finding of guilt does Parliament vote on the motion for removal.

Where does the procedural loophole arise?

1. Statutory Discretion: The Act empowers the Speaker/Chairman to reject a motion without prescribing objective criteria.
2. Absence of Reasons: No mandatory requirement exists to record or disclose reasons for refusal.
3. Non-Justiciability: The admission stage is treated as part of parliamentary procedure, limiting judicial review.
4. Gatekeeping Power: Rejection at this stage prevents inquiry, evidence collection, and parliamentary debate.

Why is this discretion constitutionally problematic?

1. Erosion of Accountability: Proven misconduct cannot be examined if inquiry is blocked at inception.
2. Separation of Powers Concern: A political office-holder effectively determines whether judicial misconduct is investigated.
3. Arbitrariness Risk: Absence of standards allows inconsistent or selective application.
4. Institutional Contradiction: Parliament’s power to regulate procedure undermines its own constitutional duty to act on misbehaviour.

Has impeachment ever succeeded in India?

1. Historical Record: No judge has been removed through impeachment since independence.
2. Failed Attempts: Multiple motions have lapsed or been withdrawn due to resignation or procedural deadlock.
3. Pattern: Political reluctance combined with procedural discretion has ensured institutional inertia.
4. Outcome: The removal mechanism exists in form but not in effect.

Conclusion

Judicial independence is vital for democracy, but it cannot exist without credible accountability. The current removal framework, though constitutionally stringent, is weakened by discretionary gatekeeping at the admission stage. This procedural gap allows serious allegations to go unexamined, undermining public trust in constitutional institutions. Strengthening objectivity and transparency in the removal process is therefore essential to preserve both judicial integrity and democratic balance.