Removal of a Judge: Constitutional Safeguards and the Judges (Inquiry) Act
Context: Justice Yashwant Varma, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, has petitioned the Supreme Court to quash a three-member committee constituted by the Lok Sabha Speaker under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 which was formed to investigate allegations against him, stemming from an incident where wads of half-burnt currency notes were found at his Delhi residence in March.
I. How is the removal of a judge conducted in India?
The removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court is a stringent, multi-layered constitutional process. This rigor is intentionally designed to safeguard judicial independence from political whims. The procedure is governed by Article 124(4) & (5) (for SC) and Articles 217 & 218 (for HC), read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
Key Steps in the Removal Process:
-
Grounds for Removal: A judge can only be removed on two specific grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
-
Initiation of the Motion: The process begins with a motion signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
-
Admission: The Speaker (LS) or Chairman (RS) has the discretion to admit or refuse the motion.
-
Investigation Committee: Upon admission, a three-member committee is formed comprising:
-
A Supreme Court Judge (or the CJI).
-
A Chief Justice of a High Court.
-
A distinguished jurist.
-
-
Parliamentary Vote: If the committee finds the judge guilty, both Houses must pass the motion in the same session with a special majority (majority of total membership and 2/3rd of members present and voting).
-
Presidential Order: The final step is an order issued by the President of India.
II. What is Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act?
Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 serves as a vital procedural safeguard for bicameral consensus.
-
The Proviso: It states that if a notice for the removal of a judge is given in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day, a committee shall not be constituted unless the motion is admitted in both Houses.
-
Significance: This prevents a single House from unilaterally proceeding if both houses have been simultaneously approached. It ensures that the investigative phase begins only with joint action by the Speaker and the Chairman.
-
The Current Controversy: Justice Varma alleges that while motions were submitted in both houses on the same day (July 21, 2025), the Lok Sabha Speaker unilaterally formed the committee while the Rajya Sabha motion was still pending admission. He argues this renders the committee illegal.
III. Why is this a concerning matter?
This case highlights a delicate moment in the separation of powers:
-
Threat to Judicial Independence: Bypassing procedural safeguards may lead to political reprisal, creating a “chilling effect” on the judiciary.
-
Erosion of Statutory Rules: Ignoring the specific mandates of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 undermines the rule of law.
-
Institutional Conflict: The petition creates a direct legal conflict between a judicial officer and the authority of the Lok Sabha Speaker.
-
Politicisation Risk: If one House can act without the other (contrary to Section 3(2)), the impeachment tool risks becoming a partisan weapon.
Ambiguity in Constitutional Procedure: The outcome will provide much-needed clarity on the interpretation of the Judges (Inquiry) Act in tandem with Articles 124 and 218. It will define whether the procedural steps are merely directory or are mandatory safeguards that must be strictly followed to protect the judiciary’s integrity.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
