Judicial Accountability vs. Independence: The Impeachment of Judges in India

Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary

Why in News: INDIA bloc MPs planning impeachment motion against Madras HC Justice G.R. Swaminathan over Karthigai Deepam order directing lamp lighting at deepathoon near dargah atop Thirupparankundram hill.

Impeachment of Judges in India

• Constitutional Basis

• Judicial removal is not termed “impeachment” in the Constitution but follows a formal removal procedure for SC and HC judges.

• Governed by Article 124(4) (SC judges) and Article 218 (HC judges), along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

• Grounds for removal: proved misbehaviour or incapacity only.

• Initiation of Proceedings

• • A removal motion must be signed by:
    • 100 Lok Sabha MPs, or
    • 50 Rajya Sabha MPs.
  • The motion is submitted to the Speaker/Chairman, who decides on admission.

• Constitution of the Inquiry Committee

• • Once admitted, a three-member committee is constituted under the 1968 Act:
    • A Supreme Court judge / CJI.
    • The Chief Justice of a High Court.
    • An eminent jurist.
  • The committee conducts a quasi-judicial investigation into charges.

• Committee Findings & Parliamentary Action

• • If the committee finds the judge guilty, the House that initiated the motion may take it up for consideration.
  • Debate occurs in both Houses before voting.

• Voting Requirement

• • Removal requires a special majority in both Houses during the same session:
    • Absolute majority: over 50% of total membership, and
    • Two-thirds majority of members present and voting.

• Final Step: Presidential Order

• • After both Houses pass the motion, an address is sent to the President.
  • The judge is removed only after the President issues the removal order.

Key Issues & Limitations

• If a judge resigns during proceedings, the process ends, limiting accountability.
• No judge has been fully removed since independence due to high voting thresholds and political abstentions.
• The stringent process ensures judicial independence but makes successful removal extremely difficult.

Notable Cases

• Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): Committee found guilt; Lok Sabha motion failed due to abstentions.
• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): RS passed removal motion; he resigned before LS vote.