 |
|
The article delves into the complex process of impeaching a sitting judge in India, focusing on the recent impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav. The motion, initiated by 55 MPs in the Rajya Sabha, stems from controversial remarks made by Justice Yadav against the Muslim community. This event highlights the crucial legal framework governing the removal of judges from their positions, a process rooted in Articles 124 and 217 of the Indian Constitution and further detailed in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. The Constitution stipulates that a Supreme Court or High Court judge can only be removed through impeachment by Parliament, based on proven misbehavior or incapacity. This necessitates a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament following a thorough inquiry. The Supreme Court's interest in Justice Yadav's case, demonstrated by its request for details from the Allahabad High Court, underscores the gravity of the situation and the judiciary's own commitment to accountability.
The article thoroughly examines the meaning of 'proved misbehavior' and 'proved incapacity,' the two grounds for impeachment. 'Proved incapacity' refers to a judge's inability to perform their duties due to physical or mental limitations. 'Proved misbehavior,' as interpreted by the Supreme Court in various cases (including C. Ravichandran Iyer vs Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee and M Krishna Swami v. Union of India), encompasses actions that undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary. This includes corruption, sexual harassment, financial misconduct, and wilful abuse of judicial office. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that a judge must maintain a higher standard of conduct than ordinary citizens. While the Constitution doesn't explicitly define these terms, the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, offered a more specific definition, including 'wilful or persistent conduct which brings dishonour or disrepute to the judiciary', and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 (which lapsed), further sought to broaden the scope of misbehavior.
The procedural steps for impeachment are laid out in detail, starting with the initiation of the motion in either house of Parliament (requiring a minimum of 100 signatures in the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha). The motion must clearly state the charges. Upon acceptance, a three-member inquiry committee, comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist, investigates the allegations. The committee's report is then presented to Parliament for debate and voting. A special majority—a majority of the total membership of each house and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting—is required for the impeachment resolution to pass. The judge has the right to present their defense before Parliament. Finally, if the resolution is passed by both houses, the President formally removes the judge from office.
The article reviews the history of impeachment attempts in India, highlighting four notable instances. The first involved Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993, where the impeachment motion failed to secure the necessary majority. Justice Soumitra Sen's case in 2011 resulted in his resignation before a vote in the Lok Sabha. Justice J.B. Pardiwala faced an impeachment attempt in 2015 related to his remarks on reservations, although this failed to progress. And in 2017, the impeachment motion against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy failed due to withdrawals of support from the petitioners. The article also mentions unsuccessful attempts against Justice P.D. Dinakaran in 2011 and a rejected motion against then-CJI Dipak Misra in 2018, highlighting the challenges and high bar for successful impeachment proceedings. The numerous failed attempts demonstrate the difficulty of removing a judge through this process, requiring substantial evidence and overwhelming parliamentary support.
The case of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav adds another layer to the complexities of judicial accountability in India. The controversy surrounding his remarks raises questions about the balance between free speech and the responsibilities of a judge. The Supreme Court's intervention, while not directly involved in the impeachment process, signals the judiciary's awareness of the potential impact of such statements on public perception and the integrity of the institution. The outcome of the impeachment motion against Justice Yadav will have significant implications, setting a precedent for future instances and further shaping the understanding of judicial accountability within the Indian context. The high threshold for impeachment, evident in the past failures, underscores the significant safeguards built into the system to protect judicial independence. However, the process also necessitates a clear and transparent mechanism for addressing instances of proven misbehavior or incapacity to ensure public trust in the judicial system.
Source: Explained| Impeachment Of A Sitting Judge: Procedure & Precedents