Source: This article Procedure for removing judges is based on article “What is the procedure for removing judges?” published in The Hindu on 17TH December 2024.
Syllabus: GS 2- Polity- Appointment to various Constitutional Posts, Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.
Context: The article discusses the procedure for the removal of judges in India and highlights the specific case involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. It explains the constitutional and legal framework for removing judges and delves into the allegations against Justice Yadav that have prompted a motion for his removal.
What does the Constitution say about the removal of judges?
- Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution state that a Supreme Court or High Court judge can be removed by the President on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- This must be approved by both Houses of Parliament with:
- A majority of the total membership of that House, and
- A two-thirds majority of members present and voting in the same session.
How are misbehaviour and incapacity defined?
The terms are not explicitly defined in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted misbehaviour to include wilful misconduct, corruption, lack of integrity, or offences involving moral turpitude. Incapacity refers to physical or mental inability to perform duties.
What is the role of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
The Act provides a detailed procedure for removal:
- A motion must be signed by at least 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs in the Lok Sabha.
- The Chairman (Rajya Sabha) or Speaker (Lok Sabha) can either admit or refuse the motion.
- If admitted, a three-member committee (comprising judges and a jurist) investigates the allegations.
- If the judge is absolved, the motion is dropped. If found guilty, the report is presented to both Houses, which must pass the motion with a special majority.
What standards govern judges’ conduct?
The Reinstatement of Values of Judicial Life (adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997) mandates that judges must reaffirm people’s faith in judicial impartiality and avoid any behaviour unbecoming of their office.
Though the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006 was not passed, it suggested defining ‘misbehaviour’ to include violations of judicial codes of conduct. It also proposed minor penalties like warnings, censures, or temporary withdrawal of judicial work for misconduct that does not warrant removal.
Why is judicial conduct so significant?
Judges must uphold the dignity of their constitutional office. Any behavior that undermines public confidence in their impartiality can harm the judiciary’s credibility.
What challenges are involved in the removal process?
The process is stringent, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. Even if the inquiry committee finds a judge guilty, the motion often fails to pass, which protects judicial independence.
How does the “Blackstone’s ratio” apply?
The principle that “it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent to suffer” applies to the removal process. The rigorous procedure ensures judicial independence by safeguarding judges from frivolous or politically motivated removal attempts.
Discover more from Free UPSC IAS Preparation Syllabus and Materials For Aspirants
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.