The removal of judges in India is a constitutionally prescribed process designed to ensure judicial independence while maintaining accountability. However, despite its robust framework, the system has notable structural weaknesses.
📜 Constitutional Basis
Judicial removal is governed by:
-
Article 124(4) – Removal of Supreme Court judges
-
Article 217 – Removal of High Court judges
A judge can be removed only on the grounds of:
-
Proven misbehaviour
-
Incapacity
The process is often referred to as impeachment, though technically it is a special majority removal process.
🏛️ Step-by-Step Removal Process
1️⃣ Initiation of Motion
A removal motion must be signed by:
-
At least 100 Lok Sabha members or
-
At least 50 Rajya Sabha members
It is then submitted to the Speaker/Chairman.
2️⃣ Investigation Committee
If admitted, a three-member committee is formed comprising:
-
A Supreme Court judge
-
A Chief Justice of a High Court
-
A distinguished jurist
The committee investigates the charges.
3️⃣ Parliamentary Voting
If the committee finds the judge guilty:
Both Houses of Parliament must pass the motion by:
-
Special majority (majority of total membership), and
-
Two-thirds of members present and voting
4️⃣ Presidential Order
After parliamentary approval, the President of India issues the removal order.
📊 Historical Context
In India’s history:
-
Very few judges have faced impeachment proceedings.
-
No Supreme Court judge has been successfully removed through the complete process.
The rarity highlights both:
-
The strength of judicial independence
-
The difficulty of proving misconduct
⚖️ Structural Weaknesses
1️⃣ Extremely High Threshold
The requirement of special majority makes removal politically difficult.
2️⃣ Political Influence
Since Parliament votes on removal:
-
Party politics may influence outcomes.
-
Motions can fail despite findings of misconduct.
3️⃣ Lengthy & Complex Process
The multi-stage mechanism can delay accountability.
4️⃣ Limited Grounds
Only “proven misbehaviour” or “incapacity” are grounds—terms that are not precisely defined.
5️⃣ No Intermediate Discipline Mechanism
There is no structured internal disciplinary framework short of impeachment.
🧭 Debate on Reforms
Experts suggest:
-
Establishing a Judicial Oversight Body
-
Clearer definitions of misconduct
-
Transparent internal accountability systems
The debate also intersects with the failed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) episode and concerns about separation of powers.
📚 Importance for Competitive Exams
Highly relevant for:
-
Indian Polity
-
Separation of Powers
-
Judicial Accountability
-
Constitutional Provisions
-
Governance & Reforms
Possible questions:
-
Explain the procedure for removal of judges in India.
-
Discuss the challenges in judicial accountability.
-
Analyze structural weaknesses in India’s impeachment process.
🏁 Conclusion
The judicial removal process in India is intentionally stringent to preserve judicial independence. However, its structural rigidity and political dependence create accountability challenges. Balancing independence with transparency remains a key constitutional debate.
For Vashishth Academy students, this topic is crucial under Polity, Governance, and Constitutional Law.