 |
|
The process of removing a sitting judge in India is a multifaceted and intricate procedure, significantly more complex than in many other democratic systems. The article outlines two distinct paths: the parliamentary route and an internal, in-house judiciary procedure. The parliamentary process, which requires a significant level of political consensus, involves a series of steps culminating in a vote in both houses of Parliament. Failure at any stage can halt the process entirely. The in-house procedure offers a less public, potentially more discreet alternative for addressing complaints against judges. The article highlights the significant hurdles embedded within both systems, making the removal of a judge a rare and arduous undertaking.
The parliamentary path begins with a motion in either the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Crucially, a motion must be passed in both houses simultaneously for the process to advance. A joint committee is then formed to formulate charges against the accused judge. This committee then presents its findings, including the judge’s written response, to Parliament. The judge has the opportunity to defend themselves before both houses of parliament, further highlighting the due process afforded throughout this lengthy procedure. However, the ultimate test requires securing a supermajority – more than half of the total membership in both houses and at least two-thirds of those present and voting. This requirement significantly raises the bar, requiring extensive bipartisan agreement and reflecting the high threshold set for judicial accountability. Only after this rigorous process is the motion forwarded to the President, who then issues the order of removal.
The internal judiciary process, while seemingly less cumbersome, still presents numerous obstacles. It commences with a complaint lodged with either the Chief Justice of a High Court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), or the President. The complaint is then subjected to a series of checks and balances. The initiating authority must first determine the merit of the complaint before proceeding. If deemed valid, the complaint is investigated, potentially by a committee consisting of high-ranking judges. This committee assesses the evidence and submits its findings to the CJI, who then decides on the appropriate action. This inherent hierarchy within the judiciary ensures that any action is taken carefully and with consideration of all aspects of the case. However, even this internal process is unlikely to result in removal unless the evidence is overwhelmingly compelling.
The case of Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court serves as a notable illustration of the challenges inherent in the process. He was accused of misappropriation of funds, and the process reached the stage where he defended himself in the Rajya Sabha. Although the Rajya Sabha passed the motion for his removal, he resigned before the motion could reach the Lok Sabha, preventing a final vote and a definitive conclusion. This highlights not only the difficulties in obtaining the required majorities but also the significant power judges retain throughout the impeachment process, even when faced with serious allegations.
The complexities inherent in both parliamentary and in-house procedures for removing a judge emphasize the substantial safeguards designed to protect judicial independence. While ensuring accountability is crucial to maintain public trust, the demanding requirements underscore the high standard of evidence and consensus required to justify the removal of a sitting judge. The process, while undeniably rigorous, reflects the delicate balance between upholding judicial independence and addressing allegations of misconduct. The considerable hurdles and requirements make the success of such procedures exceedingly rare, illustrating the critical importance of upholding the integrity and independence of the judicial branch in India.
The comparison between the two systems – parliamentary and in-house – illustrates different approaches to judicial accountability. The parliamentary system emphasizes public scrutiny and political consensus, while the in-house system prioritizes internal investigation and preservation of the judiciary's reputation. The choice of which path to pursue depends on the nature of the complaint, the perceived level of public interest, and the strategic considerations of the various actors involved. Both systems demonstrate the complexity of the balance between protecting judicial independence and ensuring appropriate accountability for those serving in the highest judicial offices.
Source: Impeaching sitting judges in India is complicated: Here’s how they can be removed