DMK Considers Motion to Remove Madras High Court Judge
DMK is exploring a motion for the removal of a Madras High Court judge over alleged misconduct, highlighting the constitutional process for judicial accountability.
Photo by Abdullah Azeez
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is reportedly considering moving a motion in Parliament for the removal of a Madras High Court judge. This comes after the judge allegedly made inappropriate remarks and displayed conduct deemed unbecoming of a judicial officer.
The process for removing a High Court judge is a serious constitutional matter, involving a motion supported by a significant number of MPs, followed by an investigation and a vote. This situation brings to light the mechanisms of judicial accountability and the checks and balances within India's democratic framework.
मुख्य तथ्य
DMK is exploring a motion for the removal of a Madras High Court judge.
The alleged grounds for removal include inappropriate remarks and conduct.
The process for judicial removal involves a parliamentary motion and investigation.
UPSC परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Constitutional provisions related to the appointment, tenure, and removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and its procedural aspects.
The concept of judicial independence versus judicial accountability.
Role of Parliament and the President in the removal process.
Grounds for removal: 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'.
Historical instances or attempts of judicial removal in India.
दृश्य सामग्री
Process for Removal of a High Court Judge
This flowchart illustrates the constitutional procedure involved in removing a High Court judge, as highlighted by the DMK's consideration of a motion. Understanding this process is crucial for comprehending judicial accountability.
- 1.Motion for Removal Introduced in Parliament
- 2.Signed by 100 Lok Sabha MPs OR 50 Rajya Sabha MPs
- 3.Speaker/Chairman Admits Motion?
- 4.Motion Lapses (If Not Admitted)
- 5.Three-Member Inquiry Committee Constituted
- 6.Committee Investigates Charges (Proven Misbehaviour / Incapacity)
- 7.Committee Finds Judge Guilty?
- 8.Motion Dropped (If Not Guilty)
- 9.Motion Taken Up for Discussion in Both Houses
- 10.Passed by Special Majority in Both Houses?
- 11.Motion Fails (If Not Passed)
- 12.Address Presented to President
- 13.President Issues Removal Order
High Courts and Judicial Accountability in India
This map highlights the Madras High Court, the focus of the current news, and other High Courts where motions for judicial removal have been initiated in the past, providing a geographical context to the discussion on judicial accountability.
Loading interactive map...
और जानकारी
पृष्ठभूमि
The Indian Constitution establishes a robust and independent judiciary. To safeguard this independence, the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is made a difficult and elaborate process, often referred to as 'impeachment' (though the term 'removal' is more accurate constitutionally).
Article 124(4) and (5) for Supreme Court judges and Article 217 read with Article 124(4) and (5) for High Court judges outline this procedure. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, further details the investigation process.
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the removal of a High Court Judge in India: 1. A motion for removal must be signed by at least 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha. 2. The grounds for removal are 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity', as defined by the Constitution. 3. The inquiry committee constituted to investigate the charges consists of a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. 4. The President can issue an order for removal only after an address by Parliament, passed by a special majority in each House. Which of the statements given above are correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: D
All four statements are correct. Statement 1: As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a removal motion requires the signatures of 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. Statement 2: Article 124(4) (applicable to High Court judges via Article 217) specifies 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' as the grounds for removal. Statement 3: Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, mandates the inquiry committee to comprise a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. Statement 4: Article 124(4) states that the President can remove a judge only after an address by Parliament, supported by a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting, and a majority of the total membership) in each House.
2. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the constitutional provisions for the judiciary in India?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: C
Statement C is NOT correct. The salaries and allowances of High Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of the *State*, not the Consolidated Fund of India. Their pensions, however, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. Statement A: Article 217(3) provides for the determination of a High Court judge's age by the President after consultation with the CJI and the Governor. Statement B: Article 222(1) allows for the transfer of a High Court judge by the President after consultation with the CJI. Statement D: Article 219 states that the Governor of the State or some person appointed by him for that purpose shall administer the oath.
3. In the context of judicial accountability and independence in India, consider the following statements: I. The process for removal of a Supreme Court judge is identical to that of a High Court judge. II. The 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' as grounds for removal are explicitly defined in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. III. The final decision on the removal of a judge rests with the President, acting on the advice of the Union Cabinet. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Statement I is correct. Article 217(1)(b) states that a High Court judge can be removed in the manner provided in Article 124(4) for the removal of a Supreme Court judge. Thus, the process is identical. Statement II is incorrect. While the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, lays down the procedure for investigating these grounds, the terms 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' themselves are not explicitly defined in the Constitution or the Act. Their interpretation is left to the inquiry committee and Parliament. Statement III is incorrect. The President issues the removal order only after an address by Parliament, passed by a special majority in each House. The President's role here is largely formal, executing the will of Parliament, not acting on the advice of the Union Cabinet in the sense of initiating or deciding the removal independently of Parliament's address.
संबंधित लेख
कर्नाटक भर्ती एससी/एसटी के लिए आंतरिक कोटा पर कानूनों की अवहेलना करती है
दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने निजी स्कूलों में शुल्क विनियमन पर रोक लगाई
APPSC ग्रुप-I भर्ती: शीर्ष अदालत ने HC के आदेश को बरकरार रखा
कपिल सिब्बल: सच्चा न्याय गुटीय बहसों से ऊपर उठता है
कर्नाटक HC ने गुटखा कंपनी द्वारा भूमि सौदे पर रोक लगाई, इसे 'दिनदहाड़े डकैती' कहा