Impeachment

What is Impeachment?

**Impeachment** in the Indian context refers to the formal constitutional process by which a judge of the **Supreme Court** or a **High Court** can be removed from office. Unlike ordinary government employees who can be terminated through administrative proceedings, judges of the higher judiciary enjoy **security of tenure** and can only be removed through a special parliamentary procedure involving both Houses of Parliament.

In simple terms, impeachment is **Parliament's way of removing a judge who has behaved badly or become incapable of performing their duties.** It is an extraordinary remedy, deliberately made difficult to invoke, because the independence of the judiciary requires that judges be free from the fear of removal for their decisions.

Legal Framework in India

Constitutional Provisions

#### Article 124(4) — Removal of Supreme Court Judges

*"A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."*

#### Article 218 — Application to High Court Judges

Article 218 provides that the provisions of Article 124 relating to the removal of a Supreme Court judge shall apply to the removal of a High Court judge as well.

#### Article 217(1)(b) — Age of Retirement

High Court judges hold office until the age of 62 years, and Supreme Court judges until the age of 65 years. Removal before retirement can only be through the impeachment process.

Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The **Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968** lays down the detailed procedure for investigating complaints of misbehaviour or incapacity against judges:

- **Section 3(1):** A motion for removing a judge can be introduced in either House of Parliament. In the Lok Sabha, it must be signed by not fewer than **100 members.** In the Rajya Sabha, it must be signed by not fewer than **50 members.**

- **Section 3(2):** The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (as the case may be) may either admit or refuse to admit the motion.

- **Section 3(3):** If the motion is admitted, the Speaker/Chairman constitutes a **three-member committee** to investigate the charges. The committee consists of:

- A sitting judge of the Supreme Court.

- A sitting Chief Justice of a High Court.

- A distinguished jurist.

- **Section 4:** The committee investigates the charges following a procedure similar to a judicial proceeding. The judge has the right to appear and be heard, to cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence.

- **Section 5:** After investigation, the committee submits its report to the Speaker/Chairman, stating whether the charges have been proved.

- **Section 6:** If the committee finds the charges proved, the motion for removal is taken up for debate in Parliament. Each House must pass the motion by:

- A **majority of the total membership** of that House, AND

- A **majority of not less than two-thirds** of the members present and voting.

The Complete Process

1. **Notice of Motion:** At least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members sign a motion for removal.

2. **Admission by Speaker/Chairman:** The presiding officer decides whether to admit the motion.

3. **Constitution of Inquiry Committee:** A three-member judicial committee is formed.

4. **Investigation:** The committee investigates the charges, following quasi-judicial procedure.

5. **Committee Report:** The committee reports its findings.

6. **Parliamentary Debate and Vote:** If charges are proved, both Houses debate and vote on the removal motion.

7. **Presidential Order:** If both Houses pass the motion with the required majority, the President issues an order removing the judge.

Grounds for Impeachment

The Constitution specifies only two grounds:

Proved Misbehaviour

This includes:

- **Corruption or bribery** — accepting bribes for favourable judgments.

- **Wilful abuse of judicial authority** — deliberately misusing the power of office.

- **Moral turpitude** — conduct that shocks the conscience of the community.

- **Violation of judicial ethics** — acting in a manner unbecoming of a judge.

The misbehaviour must be **"proved"** — mere allegations or suspicions are insufficient. The inquiry committee must find, after investigation, that the charges have been established.

Incapacity

This refers to physical or mental incapacity that renders the judge unable to perform judicial duties. It does not include temporary illness but refers to a sustained inability to discharge functions of office.

Historical Attempts at Impeachment in India

Justice V. Ramaswami (1993)

The first impeachment motion in India was against Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court. The Inquiry Committee found him guilty of misbehaviour involving misuse of public funds during his tenure as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, when the motion came before the Lok Sabha, it failed to secure the required two-thirds majority — the ruling party abstained from voting.

Justice Soumitra Sen (2011)

Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court faced impeachment proceedings for misappropriation of funds. The Rajya Sabha passed the removal motion, making it the first time either House had voted to remove a judge. However, before the Lok Sabha could vote, Justice Sen resigned, rendering the motion infructuous.

Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran

An impeachment motion was initiated against Justice P.D. Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, on charges of corruption and possession of disproportionate assets. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.

When Does This Term Matter?

Judicial Accountability

Impeachment is the primary mechanism for holding higher judiciary judges accountable for misconduct. In a system where judges enjoy security of tenure and immunity from ordinary legal processes for their judicial acts, impeachment serves as the ultimate check.

Independence of the Judiciary

The deliberately high threshold for impeachment — requiring special majorities in both Houses — is designed to protect judicial independence. Judges must be free to decide cases according to the law and the Constitution without fear of removal for unpopular decisions.

Public Trust in the Judiciary

When serious allegations of misconduct arise against a judge, the impeachment process provides a constitutional mechanism for investigation and accountability, maintaining public confidence in the judiciary.

Legal Profession

Advocates who appear before judges facing impeachment proceedings, and the legal community more broadly, are directly affected by such proceedings and their outcomes.

Practical Significance

Impeachment is an extraordinary constitutional remedy that has never been successfully completed in India. The high threshold — requiring special majorities in both Houses, combined with political complexities — makes it extremely difficult. However, the mere existence of the process serves as a deterrent against judicial misconduct. In practice, judges facing serious allegations have often chosen to resign rather than face the full impeachment process.

The difficulty of impeachment has led to calls for reform, including proposals for a National Judicial Commission or Judicial Standards and Accountability legislation that would provide intermediate mechanisms for addressing judicial misconduct short of full impeachment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has any judge been successfully impeached and removed in India?

No. As of now, no judge of the Supreme Court or High Court has been successfully removed through the impeachment process. The closest instance was Justice Soumitra Sen, where the Rajya Sabha passed the removal motion, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote. The motion against Justice V. Ramaswami failed in the Lok Sabha. The process has proven to be exceptionally difficult to complete.

Can a retired judge be impeached?

No. The impeachment process under Article 124(4) applies only to sitting judges. Once a judge retires, they are no longer holding office and cannot be removed from an office they no longer hold. There is currently no constitutional mechanism to take action against a retired judge for misconduct during their tenure, though they may face criminal proceedings like any other citizen.

What is the difference between impeachment in India and the United States?

In the **United States**, impeachment applies to the President, Vice President, and all civil officers (including judges). The House of Representatives impeaches (brings charges), and the Senate conducts the trial. In **India**, impeachment in the strict sense refers only to the removal of judges (though the process for removing the President under Article 61 is similar). In India, both Houses must pass the removal motion with a special majority, and there is a prior investigation by a judicial committee — a safeguard not found in the American system.

Can the process be challenged in court?

The Supreme Court has held that while the final decision of Parliament on removal is not justiciable (cannot be reviewed by courts), the **procedural aspects** can be judicially reviewed. If the Speaker/Chairman refuses to admit the motion or if the inquiry committee's procedure violates principles of natural justice, such decisions can be challenged in court. In **Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991)**, the Court reviewed the Speaker's decision to reject the impeachment motion against Justice Ramaswami.