Impeachment of Judges in India
The impeachment motion against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has brought attention to the judicial removal process in India. The motion, backed by 107 Members of Parliament from the Lok Sabha, accuses the judge of acting against secular constitutional principles, among 13 other charges.
Constitutional Provisions
- Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution cover the removal of Supreme Court judges, while Articles 217(1)(b) and 218 cater to High Court judges.
- The term ‘impeachment’ is not used for judges in the Constitution; it is reserved for the President's removal under Article 61.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, along with its Rules, details the procedure for the removal of judges.
Grounds for Removal
- A judge can be removed for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Misbehaviour includes conduct that dishonours the judiciary, corruption, lack of integrity, or offenses involving moral turpitude.
- Judgments such as K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India emphasize the high standards of honesty and impartiality expected from judges.
Impeachment Procedure
The procedure for impeachment is rigorous to protect judicial independence:
- An address must be passed by a majority in each House of Parliament, with at least two-thirds of members present and voting, to request the President to remove a judge.
- A motion for impeachment requires signatures from at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
- The Speaker or Chairman must admit the motion before further proceedings.
Challenges and Criticisms
- The Speaker/Chairman has significant discretion in admitting the motion, which can result in the motion lapsing if not admitted.
- This process lacks clear guidelines on the conditions for motion admissibility, leading to potential charges of arbitrariness.
- The preliminary examination by the Speaker/Chairman is crucial as it determines if the motion proceeds to a detailed investigation by a committee of senior judicial figures.
- There is concern that government influence could thwart the removal process.
Revisiting the Process
The discretionary power of the Speaker/Chairman to admit or disallow motions is seen as a potential loophole, suggesting the need for revisiting these provisions to ensure a fair and effective judicial removal process.
