Context

• The notice of an impeachment motion by 107 Members of Parliament against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madras High Court has renewed debate on the constitutional process for judicial removal in India.
• The charges include alleged violations of secular constitutional principles and bias towards a particular community.
• Beyond the specific allegations, the episode raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the constitutional framework governing judicial accountability while preserving independence.

Constitutional & Legal Framework for Judicial Removal and Meaning of Misbehaviour & Judicial Standards

• Constitutional and Legal Framework for Judicial Removal
  • The Constitution of India lays down the procedure for removing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts under Articles 124, 217, and 218.
  • While the term impeachment is reserved for the President, the process for judges emphasises removal through a rigorous parliamentary mechanism.
  • Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate procedures for investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity, leading to the enactment of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
  • This framework reflects a deliberate intent to make judicial removal rare and difficult, thereby safeguarding the judiciary from political pressure.
• Meaning of Misbehaviour and Judicial Standards
  • The Constitution does not define misbehaviour, leaving interpretation to judicial pronouncements.
  • The Supreme Court has clarified that not every judicial error qualifies as misconduct.
  • Only wilful abuse of office, lack of integrity, corruption, or conduct involving moral turpitude meets the constitutional threshold.
  • These standards underline the principle that judges must adhere to exceptionally high ethical norms, as public trust in the judiciary depends on both actual and perceived impartiality.

Procedural Safeguards and the Role of Parliament

• The removal process is deliberately stringent. A motion requires signatures from at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
• Final removal demands an address passed by each House with a special majority, ensuring broad political consensus.
• Upon admission of a motion, an inquiry committee comprising senior judicial figures conducts a detailed investigation into the charges.
• This multi-layered process is designed to prevent frivolous or politically motivated attempts to unseat judges.

The Critical Flaw: Discretion at the Threshold Stage

• A serious flaw emerges at the preliminary stage. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the power to admit or reject the motion at the outset.
• The Act does not specify criteria for this decision, granting wide discretion.
• If the motion is rejected, the process ends immediately, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations or the number of MPs supporting it.
• This unfettered discretion risks arbitrariness, especially since the presiding officer acts as a statutory authority rather than merely as a parliamentary functionary.
• The absence of defined standards for admissibility makes the decision vulnerable to political considerations, undermining the credibility of the process.

Constitutional Inconsistency and Democratic Implications

• Article 124(5) authorises Parliament to regulate procedures for investigation and proof, but it does not explicitly empower the presiding officer to block the process altogether.
• Proof of misbehaviour is meant to arise from an impartial inquiry, not from a preliminary political filter.
• The power to reject a motion at the threshold therefore appears inconsistent with the constitutional design.
• The implications for democracy are significant. If the executive or ruling majority influences the presiding officer, a constitutionally sanctioned mechanism for ensuring judicial accountability can be rendered ineffective.
• This does not strengthen judicial independence; instead, it weakens public confidence by insulating potentially errant judges from scrutiny.

Conclusion

• India’s impeachment framework reflects a strong commitment to judicial independence through high thresholds and complex procedures.
• However, the unchecked discretion vested in the Speaker or Chairman at the preliminary stage disrupts the intended balance between independence and accountability.
• Revisiting this provision is essential to prevent misuse and to ensure that serious allegations against judges receive impartial examination.
• Meaningful reform in this area would strengthen constitutional governance without compromising the autonomy of the judiciary.