Font size:
Print
Judicial Independence Under Scrutiny
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.
How are judges removed in India?
- The removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in India is a stringent, multi-layered constitutional process intended to safeguard judicial independence. The procedure is outlined in Article 124(4) & (5) for Supreme Court judges and Articles 217 & 218 for High Court judges, read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- Key Steps in the Removal Process:
- Grounds for Removal: A judge can only be removed on two grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Initiation: The process begins when a motion for removal is submitted to either the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The motion must be supported by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
- Admission of Motion: The Speaker/Chairman has the discretion to admit or refuse the motion. If admitted, a three-member committee is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- Investigation Committee: This committee comprises: A Supreme Court Judge (or Chief Justice of a High Court), A Chief Justice of a High Court, and A distinguished jurist.
- Its task is to investigate the allegations and determine if they are true.
- Parliamentary Vote: If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion, along with the report, is placed before both Houses of Parliament. The judge has the right to be heard.
- Final Removal: For the motion to pass, it must be adopted by each House with a special majority—a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
- Presidential Order: Upon successful passage in both Houses, the President issues an order for the judge’s removal.
What is Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act?
- Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is a crucial procedural safeguard that dictates how the investigative committee is formed when motions for removal are introduced in both Houses of Parliament.
- The Provision States: If a notice of a motion for removal 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.
- Once admitted in both Houses, the committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
- The Purpose and Significance: This proviso prevents a situation where one House of Parliament can unilaterally initiate a removal proceeding against a judge if the other House has also received a motion on the same day.
- It mandates bicameral consensus at the very first stage (admission of the motion) and joint action in forming the investigative committee.
- The intent is to ensure the process is bipartisan, deliberate, and not driven by the political dynamics of a single House, thereby offering greater protection to the judge and the judiciary’s independence.
- The Core of Justice Varma’s Challenge: Justice Varma alleges that notices for his removal were submitted in both Houses on 21 July 2025.
- While the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion and unilaterally constituted the committee on 12 August 2025, the motion in the Rajya Sabha was still pending admission.
- He argues this is a direct violation of the mandatory procedure under Section 3(2), rendering the committee’s constitution illegal.
Why is it a concerning matter?
This case raises profound concerns regarding constitutional governance and the separation of powers:
- Threat to Judicial Independence: The core principle of an independent judiciary is that judges should perform their duties without fear of political reprisal. If the procedural safeguards in the removal process are bypassed or applied arbitrarily, it could create a chilling effect, making judges susceptible to pressure from the legislature.
- Erosion of Procedural Safeguards: The detailed provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act were enacted by Parliament itself to operationalise the constitutional mandate. Ignoring these provisions, especially the bicameral check in Section 3(2), sets a dangerous precedent where statutory rules can be overlooked, undermining the rule of law.
- Conflict between Constitutional Organs: The petition pits a High Court judge against the authority of the Lok Sabha Speaker. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will delineate the boundaries of the Speaker’s discretion under the Act and reaffirm (or reinterpret) the precise steps in the removal process. This creates a delicate moment in institutional relations.
- Potential for Politicisation: A perception that the removal process can be initiated by one House without the concurrent step of the other, as mandated for same-day motions, could lead to accusations of partisan use of the impeachment tool. This risks politicising a grave constitutional mechanism meant only for extreme cases of misconduct.
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
