A rude wake-up call

A rude wake-up call

Question asked

Should there be some safeguards before the motion, tabled by the requisite number of Members of Parliament, is admitted?

Negative effects

Loss of credibility and reputation:The incalculable damage that even a mere admission of an impeachment motion can cause, and the consequential loss of reputation, that can never be redeemed, need to be primarily addressed.

Protection of honest judges:While a corrupt judge should be impeached without doubt, it must be ensured that the large body of independent judges is protected and they are not inhibited and shackled while going about their work with any possible threat of an impeachment looming large

Blow to the economy:In the eyes of the international community, the executive government also will be shown in a bad light if the judiciary in the country is not independent and strong. Business will not be forthcoming. Tourism will suffer. There will be fear and insecurity. The rule of law will be a far cry. All this will deliver a serious blow to the economy

Procedure suggested by the author

• Concurrence of the full court of SC: Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, should be so interpreted that before admitting a motion of impeachment against a judge of a high court or the Supreme Court, the presiding officers in Parliament should be obliged to obtain the concurrence of the full court of the Supreme Court and if it involves a judge of the apex court, that judge would not participate in the sitting
• Within 4 weeks:If no response from SC within 4 weeks then it would be a deemed concurrence
• Illegal and void:Admission without concurrence would render the motion illegal

Reasons why the above procedure would best serve the constitution

• Both removal and appointment by the SC: After the Second Judges case, today the power to appoint judges of the higher judiciary vests in the apex court. Removal being directly connected to appointment, it is only logical that the first filter in the process vest with the judiciary.
• Independence of the judiciary in the removal process also: The principle of independence of the judiciary on which the Second Judges Case was founded for the aspect of appointment should apply with full vigour to the initiation of the removal process. In a matter like this, which is so integral to the judiciary and to its independence, such a safeguard ought not to be seen as diluting the powers of the presiding officers of Parliament.
• Safeguarding the honest judges: The Judges (Inquiry) Act expressly provides that the presiding officers, before admitting a motion for impeachment, will consult such persons as they deem fit. It can be safely presumed that while the peer group will immediately concur to get rid of the black sheep from their midst, they will zealously safeguard a judge who is unfairly targeted.

Steps need to be taken by the judiciary

Message should be sent from top: It is time that by a judicial order the Memorandum of Procedure (MOP) is set out and a mandamus issued to government to follow the same and clear pending appointments in a time-bound manner

Conclusion

After all, there is no reason for any clean government to fear a judiciary that is strong, fearless and independent.