DIRECT ANSWER: The removal of a Superior Court Judge is governed by Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It requires a special majority vote by Parliament following an inquiry into 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity', deliberately making the process rigorous to protect judicial independence.
Why in News?
The issue is relevant due to a recent political controversy surrounding an opposition move to initiate a removal motion (often termed impeachment) against a sitting superior court judge. This move has drawn sharp criticism, reigniting the debate over the politicization of this critical constitutional mechanism.
What is the Concept / Issue?
The removal procedure for a Supreme Court or High Court judge is the most stringent form of judicial accountability established under the Constitution. It is not an 'impeachment' in the US sense, but a motion-based removal process governed by Article 124(4) (and applied to HCs via Article 217) and detailed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The grounds are strictly limited to 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'.
Why is this Issue Important?
- Strategic: The complexity of the removal procedure is a cornerstone of judicial independence. Any compromise or politicization of this process risks legislative dominance and fundamentally alters the balance of power envisioned in the separation of powers doctrine.
- Economic: Judicial independence is crucial for maintaining the rule of law, which underpins contractual stability, property rights, and investor confidence. Erosion of trust in the judiciary due to political interference can negatively impact the economic environment.
- Geopolitical/Social: A judiciary free from external pressure is essential for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens and ensuring the effective functioning of democracy, safeguarding the social contract.
Key Sectors / Dimensions Involved
- Dimension 1: Constitutional Law and Procedure (Articles 124(4), 124(5), and the role of the Judges Inquiry Committee).
- Dimension 2: Legislative Oversight (The powers and limitations of Parliament in initiating and voting on the removal motion, requiring a Special Majority).
- Dimension 3: Ethics and Accountability (The determination of standards constituting 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity' by the Inquiry Committee).
What are the Challenges?
- Politicization: The high threshold for the motion (100 LS/50 RS members) is often met based on political alignments rather than rigorous legal assessment of charges.
- Lack of Definition: The constitutional terms 'misbehaviour' and 'incapacity' lack precise definition, leading to ambiguity in application by both the Parliament and the Inquiry Committee.
- Institutional Reluctance: Historical context shows that even when inquiry committees have found judges guilty, the final parliamentary vote has been hampered by institutional pressures, resulting in zero final removals to date.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims Focus:
- Constitutional Articles governing the removal of SC/HC Judges (124(4), 217).
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the composition of the Inquiry Committee.
- The concept of 'Special Majority' required for the removal resolution.
Mains Angle:
GS Paper II: Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary; Parliament – issues arising out of powers & privileges.
How UPSC May Ask This Topic:
Analyze how the constitutional provisions for the removal of a superior court judge serve as a critical component of the basic structure, discussing the necessary safeguards against legislative overreach and the challenges posed by potential political misuse. (250 words, 15 marks)
What is the Way Forward?
- Strengthening Internal Mechanisms: Developing robust internal mechanisms within the judiciary (e.g., National Judicial Oversight Authority) to address minor ethical lapses, reserving the parliamentary process only for grave constitutional misconduct.
- Clearer Judicial Standards: Judicial or legislative action to provide clearer, standardized definitions of 'misbehaviour' to ensure consistency in the Inquiry Committee's findings.
- Convention Development: Establishing clear, non-partisan conventions for the Presiding Officers regarding the acceptance of removal motions, focusing strictly on prima facie constitutional justification rather than political expediency.