Opposition MPs Seek Impeachment of Madras High Court Judge
Photo by Seungho Park-Lee
Quick Revision
INDIA bloc MPs move to impeach Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
Accusations of deciding cases based on political ideology.
Move follows judge's order regarding Karthigai Deepam festival.
Key Numbers
Visual Insights
Timeline of Impeachment Motions Against Judges in India
Illustrates the historical context of impeachment motions against judges in India, highlighting the current motion against Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
Impeachment motions against judges are rare in India and none have been successful. This timeline provides context to the current motion.
- 1990-1993Impeachment motion against Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court. Failed in Lok Sabha.
- 2011Impeachment motion against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court. He resigned before the impeachment could be completed.
- 2015Impeachment motion against Justice J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court. Later withdrawn.
- 2018Impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dipak Misra of the Supreme Court. Rejected by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
- 2024Opposition MPs seek impeachment of Justice G.R. Swaminathan of Madras High Court.
Exam Angles
Constitutional provisions related to impeachment
Role of the judiciary in a democracy
Separation of powers and checks and balances
Secularism and judicial impartiality
View Detailed Summary
Summary
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the impeachment of a High Court judge in India: 1. A motion for impeachment must be supported by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. 2. The judge can be removed only on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. 3. The impeachment process is initiated after an investigation by a committee appointed by the President. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 3 is incorrect. The investigation committee is not appointed by the President, but formed as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 after the motion is admitted by the Speaker/Chairman.
2. With reference to the recent news regarding the impeachment motion against a Madras High Court judge, which of the following statements accurately reflects the constitutional position on secularism in India?
- A.The Constitution mandates a strict separation between religion and state, prohibiting any state involvement in religious affairs.
- B.The Constitution allows the state to promote all religions equally, ensuring religious harmony and social justice.
- C.The Constitution adopts a 'positive secularism' approach, allowing the state to engage with religion to reform and regulate religious institutions.
- D.The Constitution establishes a state religion, while guaranteeing freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion to all citizens.
Show Answer
Answer: C
India follows positive secularism, allowing state intervention in religious matters for social reform. Options A, B, and D are incorrect interpretations of Indian secularism.
3. Consider the following statements: 1. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, provides the framework for investigating allegations against judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. 2. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha has the discretion to admit or reject a motion for impeachment against a judge. 3. If an impeachment motion is admitted, a committee is constituted to investigate the charges, comprising solely of members of Parliament. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 3 is incorrect. The investigation committee includes the Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
4. In the context of the recent impeachment motion against a High Court judge, which of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the grounds for impeachment of judges in India?
- A.Proven misbehaviour is a valid ground for impeachment.
- B.Incapacity is a valid ground for impeachment.
- C.Disagreement with a judge's interpretation of the law is a valid ground for impeachment.
- D.Violation of the Constitution is a valid ground for impeachment, if it amounts to misbehaviour.
Show Answer
Answer: C
Disagreement with a judge's interpretation of the law is not a valid ground for impeachment. The grounds are proven misbehaviour or incapacity.