Opposition MPs Seek Inquiry into High Court Judge's Conduct
Over 100 Opposition MPs have submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker, seeking an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of a High Court judge, initiating a potential impeachment process.
Photo by Brett Jordan
त्वरित संशोधन
Over 100 Opposition MPs submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
The notice seeks an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of a High Court judge, Justice S. Muralidhar.
This is the first step in the process for the removal of a judge.
MPs from Congress, DMK, Left, and others signed the notice.
The process involves the Speaker admitting the motion and forming an inquiry committee.
महत्वपूर्ण तिथियां
महत्वपूर्ण संख्याएं
दृश्य सामग्री
Parliamentary Process for Removal of a High Court/Supreme Court Judge
This flowchart illustrates the formal constitutional procedure initiated by Members of Parliament for the removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge, as highlighted by the recent notice submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
- 1.Grounds: Proven Misbehaviour or Incapacity (Article 124(4), 217(1)(b))
- 2.Initiation: Motion signed by 100+ Lok Sabha MPs OR 50+ Rajya Sabha MPs
- 3.Speaker/Chairman's Discretion: Admit or Refuse Motion
- 4.If Admitted: Inquiry Committee Constituted (SC Judge, HC CJ, Distinguished Jurist)
- 5.Investigation: Committee investigates charges, Judge has right to representation
- 6.Report Submission: Committee submits report to Speaker/Chairman
- 7.If Report Finds Judge Guilty: Motion taken up for consideration in respective House
- 8.Parliamentary Vote: Passed by Special Majority in BOTH Houses (Majority of total membership AND 2/3rd of members present & voting)
- 9.Presidential Order: President issues order for removal of the Judge
परीक्षा के दृष्टिकोण
Constitutional provisions for judicial removal (Articles 124, 218)
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and its procedural aspects
Role of Parliament (Lok Sabha Speaker, Rajya Sabha Chairperson) in judicial accountability
Balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability
Comparison of removal procedures for different constitutional functionaries
Powers and functions of the Speaker/Chairperson
विस्तृत सारांश देखें
सारांश
More than 100 Opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) from various parties have submitted a notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker, seeking an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of a High Court judge, Justice S. Muralidhar. This move is significant as it initiates the formal process for the removal of a judge, which is a rare and serious constitutional procedure.
The notice, signed by MPs from parties like the Congress, DMK, and Left, alleges that the judge's conduct warrants investigation. Essentially, this highlights the parliamentary mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability and the checks and balances within India's constitutional framework. The process involves the Speaker admitting the motion, forming an inquiry committee, and if misconduct is found, a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
पृष्ठभूमि
नवीनतम घटनाक्रम
बहुविकल्पीय प्रश्न (MCQ)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the procedure for removal of a High Court Judge in India: 1. A motion for removal can be initiated in the Lok Sabha by a minimum of 100 members or in the Rajya Sabha by a minimum of 50 members. 2. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker/Chairperson constitutes a three-member inquiry committee consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. 3. The report of the inquiry committee, if it finds the judge guilty, is binding on both Houses of Parliament, leading directly to the President's order of removal. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 only
- B.1 and 2 only
- C.2 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: B
Statement 1 is correct. As per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a motion for removal can be presented to the Speaker of Lok Sabha by 100 members or to the Chairperson of Rajya Sabha by 50 members. Statement 2 is correct. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker/Chairperson constitutes a three-member committee as described. Statement 3 is incorrect. The report of the inquiry committee is not binding. If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion, along with the report, is then taken up for consideration in both Houses of Parliament. It must be passed by a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting and an absolute majority of the total membership) in each House before it is presented to the President for the removal order. The Parliament has the final say, not the committee's report directly.
2. In the context of judicial accountability in India, which of the following statements correctly describes the constitutional provisions related to the removal of a High Court Judge?
- A.A High Court Judge can be removed by the President on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, after an address by Parliament.
- B.The Chief Justice of India has the sole authority to initiate the removal proceedings against a High Court Judge.
- C.The process for removal of a High Court Judge is less stringent than that for a Supreme Court Judge.
- D.A High Court Judge can be removed by a simple majority vote in both Houses of Parliament.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: A
Option A is correct. Article 218 of the Constitution states that the provisions of clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 (which deal with the removal of a Supreme Court Judge) shall apply in relation to a High Court Judge. Thus, a High Court Judge can be removed by the President on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, after an address by Parliament supported by a special majority. Option B is incorrect. The initiation of removal proceedings is a parliamentary prerogative, not solely of the Chief Justice of India. Option C is incorrect. The process for removal of a High Court Judge is exactly the same as that for a Supreme Court Judge, as per Article 218. Option D is incorrect. The removal requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament, not a simple majority.
3. Which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?
- A.It lays down the detailed procedure for investigation and presentation of an address for the removal of a judge.
- B.The inquiry committee formed under this Act must include a Chief Justice of a High Court.
- C.The Act applies to both Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- D.The findings of the inquiry committee are subject to direct judicial review by the Supreme Court for their correctness.
उत्तर देखें
सही उत्तर: D
Option A is correct. The Act specifically details the procedure for inquiry into allegations against judges. Option B is correct. The three-member committee comprises a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. Option C is correct. Article 218 extends the provisions of Article 124(4) and (5) to High Court judges, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is the enabling legislation for both. Option D is NOT correct. While the *process* of impeachment can be challenged on procedural grounds before the Supreme Court (e.g., for violation of natural justice), the *findings* of the inquiry committee itself are presented to Parliament for its consideration and vote, not subject to direct judicial review for their correctness as an appellate body. Parliament decides whether to accept the findings and proceed with removal.