Judicial Impeachment: Analysis of Process, Challenges, and Need for Reform
Analysis of judicial impeachment process reveals loophole in Judges Inquiry Act.
Photo by Seungho Park-Lee
Editorial Analysis
The author argues that the provision allowing the Speaker/Chairman to disallow the motion for judicial impeachment needs to be revisited. This is because it can thwart the impeachment process even with significant MP support, potentially undermining the constitutional provision for removing an unworthy judge.
Main Arguments:
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 allows the Speaker/Chairman to admit or disallow a motion for judicial impeachment.
- The Speaker/Chairman's power to disallow the motion may lead to arbitrariness, as the Act does not specify conditions of admissibility.
- The preliminary examination by the Speaker/Chairman is crucial, but the law does not provide clear guidelines for this examination.
- The provision allowing the Speaker/Chairman to disallow the motion needs to be revisited, as it can thwart the impeachment process even with significant MP support.
Counter Arguments:
- The law relating to the removal of a judge of the superior courts was made as tough as possible to protect the independence of the judiciary.
- The Speaker/Chairman may consult such persons as he thinks fit before admitting or rejecting the motion.
Conclusion
Policy Implications
An impeachment motion was moved against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court by 107 MPs in December 2025, citing misbehavior and bias. Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution provide for the removal of judges, using the term 'removal' rather than 'impeachment'.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 outlines the procedure for investigating charges. A judge can be removed on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity. The Act allows the Speaker/Chairman to admit or disallow the motion, but this power may lead to arbitrariness.
The author argues that the provision allowing the Speaker/Chairman to disallow the motion needs to be revisited, as it can thwart the impeachment process even with significant MP support.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II: Constitution, Polity, Governance - Judicial Review, Parliamentary Procedures
Connects to syllabus topics on separation of powers, judicial accountability, and constitutional amendments
Potential question types: analytical questions on judicial independence vs. accountability, statement-based questions on constitutional provisions, critical analysis of the Judges (Inquiry) Act
Visual Insights
Impeachment Process of a Judge in India
A flowchart illustrating the steps involved in the impeachment process of a judge, highlighting the role of the Speaker/Chairman and the special majority requirement.
- 1.Motion moved by 100 (LS) or 50 (RS) MPs
- 2.Speaker/Chairman admits or disallows motion
- 3.If admitted, 3-member committee investigates charges
- 4.Committee finds judge guilty
- 5.Motion passed by special majority in both Houses
- 6.President issues removal order
- 7.Motion disallowed by Speaker/Chairman
More Information
Background
The process of judicial removal in India draws heavily from the British parliamentary system and the impeachment process outlined in the US Constitution. While the Indian Constitution doesn't use the term 'impeachment' for judges, the procedure for their removal is similar in principle. The Constituent Assembly debated extensively on the grounds and process for removing judges, aiming to balance judicial independence with accountability.
Early drafts of the Constitution proposed various mechanisms, including direct parliamentary votes and judicial inquiries. The final version, incorporating elements from different models, established a process involving a motion in Parliament, investigation by a committee, and a vote requiring a special majority. The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 was enacted to provide a detailed framework for this constitutional provision, specifying the procedures for investigation and presentation of evidence.
Latest Developments
In recent years, there has been increasing scrutiny of the judicial appointment and removal processes globally, including in India. Debates around the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was struck down by the Supreme Court, highlighted concerns about transparency and executive influence in judicial appointments. The lack of a clear and easily implementable mechanism for addressing allegations of misconduct against judges continues to be a subject of discussion.
Comparative analyses of judicial accountability mechanisms in countries like the UK, US, and Canada reveal different approaches to balancing judicial independence and public trust. The Law Commission of India has also periodically reviewed the Judges (Inquiry) Act, suggesting amendments to streamline the process and enhance its effectiveness. The increasing use of social media and public discourse has also added a new dimension to the debate, with allegations against judges often being amplified and debated in the public domain.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are the constitutional articles related to the removal of a High Court judge, as mentioned in the context?
Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution deal with the removal of judges. These articles outline the process for removing a judge on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.
2. What is the key legislation that outlines the procedure for investigating charges against a judge?
The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 outlines the procedure for investigating charges against a judge.
3. What is the role of the Speaker/Chairman in the judicial impeachment process, and what is the potential issue with this role?
The Speaker/Chairman can admit or disallow the impeachment motion. The potential issue is that this power may lead to arbitrariness, potentially thwarting the impeachment process even with significant MP support.
4. Why is the provision allowing the Speaker/Chairman to disallow an impeachment motion being questioned?
This provision is being questioned because it can potentially obstruct the impeachment process even when a significant number of MPs support the motion. This raises concerns about fairness and accountability.
5. What are the grounds on which a judge can be removed from office?
As per the topic, a judge can be removed on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.
6. What is the historical background of judicial removal processes in India?
The process of judicial removal in India draws heavily from the British parliamentary system and the impeachment process outlined in the US Constitution. The Constituent Assembly debated extensively on the grounds and process for removing judges.
7. What are the potential reforms needed in the judicial impeachment process in India?
Based on the editorial, the provision allowing the Speaker/Chairman to disallow the impeachment motion needs to be revisited to ensure a fairer and more transparent process.
8. Why is the judicial impeachment process in the news recently?
The judicial impeachment process is in the news because an impeachment motion was moved against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court in December 2025.
9. What are the key dates and figures associated with the recent impeachment motion?
The impeachment motion was moved in December 2025. 107 MPs moved the motion against Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
10. What impact does a potentially flawed judicial impeachment process have on common citizens?
A flawed process can undermine public trust in the judiciary. If judges are not held accountable or if the process is seen as unfair, it can erode confidence in the justice system.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the removal of judges of High Courts in India: 1. A judge can be removed only on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'. 2. The motion for removal needs to be passed by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. 3. The Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968 provides the procedure for investigation of charges. 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: D
All three statements are correct. A judge can be removed only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The motion requires a special majority in both houses, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 outlines the investigation procedure.
2. With reference to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which of the following statements is NOT correct?
- A.The Act provides a mechanism for investigating allegations against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- B.The Speaker/Chairman has the power to admit or disallow a motion for removal of a judge.
- C.The investigating committee must consist of solely sitting judges of the Supreme Court.
- D.The Act specifies the grounds for removal as 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'.
Show Answer
Answer: C
The investigating committee can consist of a sitting or former judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. It is not solely limited to sitting judges of the Supreme Court.
Source Articles
What is the procedure for removing judges? | Explained - The Hindu
Karnataka HC flags serious legal loophole in Kaveri 2.0 software as there is no facility to enter decrees of civil courts in land records - The Hindu
Only Parliament has the jurisdiction to constitutionally remove a High Court judge: RS Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar - The Hindu
The Hindu : Removal of judges
The challenge of holding judges accountable - The Hindu