The process for removing a Supreme Court judge is explained in Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution. The same rules apply to High Court judges, as stated in Article 218.
Grounds For Removal
A judge can only be removed from office by Parliament under two specific conditions:
- Proven Misbehaviour – Actions that are inappropriate or unethical.
- Incapacity – A judge’s inability to perform their duties.
This process follows a strict procedure to ensure fairness and accountability.
Procedure For Removing A Judge
The provision states: “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after 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 the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
In simpler terms, for an impeachment motion against a Supreme Court or High Court judge to succeed:
- At least two-thirds of the members present and voting in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must support the motion.
- The total number of votes in favor must be more than 50% of the total membership of each House.
Once Parliament approves the motion, the President issues an order to remove the judge.
The High Threshold For Removal
The grounds and process for impeachment are intentionally set at a high standard. This ensures the judiciary’s independence is protected and judges are not removed arbitrarily.
A Political And Legal Process
Impeachment also involves political considerations. It requires the support of a wide range of Members of Parliament (MPs). Furthermore, the motion must be admitted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, depending on where it is introduced.
The Steps For Impeachment Of A Judge
The procedure for impeaching a judge is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
Step 1: Initiating the Motion
Under Section 3 of the Act:
- A motion for impeachment must be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha (Lower House) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (Upper House).
- Collecting these signatures is the first step in the impeachment process.
Step 2: Forming the Committee
After the motion is introduced, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha forms a three-member inquiry committee. This committee includes:
- The Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.
- A Chief Justice of a High Court.
- A person considered a “distinguished jurist” by the Speaker or Chairman.
The committee’s role is to frame the charges against the judge. If the charge involves mental incapacity, the committee can order a medical examination of the judge. It also has powers to:
- Regulate its own procedure.
- Collect evidence.
- Cross-examine witnesses.
Step 3: Committee’s Report
- Once the inquiry is complete:
- The committee submits its report to the Speaker or Chairman.
- The report is then presented to the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha as soon as possible.
If the committee finds the judge not guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the matter is closed.If the committee finds the judge guilty, the report is adopted by the House where the motion began. The House then makes an address to the President seeking the judge’s removal.
Defining Misbehaviour And Incapacity
The Constitution does not clearly define “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity.” However, the Supreme Court has clarified these terms in various cases:
Misbehaviour includes:
- Wilful misconduct in office.
- Corruption or lack of integrity.
- Offences involving moral turpitude.
Incapacity refers to a medical condition, such as physical or mental inability, that prevents a judge from performing their duties.
This process ensures a thorough investigation while maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Instances Of Impeachment Attempts in India
Since Independence, there have been six attempts to impeach judges in India, but none have been successful. In only two cases — Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) and Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) — the inquiry committees found the judges guilty.
Justice V. Ramaswami (1993)
- Allegation: Financial impropriety.
- Outcome: Justice Ramaswami, a former Supreme Court judge, faced impeachment in 1993. The motion failed, and he retired a year later.
Justice Soumitra Sen (2011)
- Allegation: Corruption.
- Outcome: Justice Sen, of the Calcutta High Court, was found guilty by an inquiry committee. The Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion, but he resigned just before the Lok Sabha could discuss it. His resignation caused the proceedings to lapse.
Justice S.K. Gangele (2015)
- Allegation: Sexual harassment.
- Outcome: Justice Gangele, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was investigated by a committee. In 2017, the committee cleared him of the charges.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala (2015)
- Allegation: Remarks against reservation policy.
- Outcome: Justice Pardiwala, then a Gujarat High Court judge and now a sitting Supreme Court judge, faced impeachment for stating that reservation hindered the country’s progress. He later removed the remarks from his judgment. Following this, the motion was dropped by then Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna (2017)
- Allegation: Victimising a Dalit judge and financial misconduct.
- Outcome: Justice Nagarjuna, of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Court, faced impeachment. The motions failed because Rajya Sabha MPs who had signed withdrew their support, causing the motion to fall short of the required numbers.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra (2018)
- Allegation: Politically charged impeachment attempt.
- Outcome: The motion to impeach then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was dismissed at the preliminary stage by Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu.
Most impeachment attempts involved charges of financial misconduct, with one case involving sexual harassment. The stringent procedure and political complexities have made successful impeachment nearly impossible, ensuring the judiciary remains independent.