the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The procedure for the removal of judges in India, as outlined in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is a detailed and constitutionally safeguarded process designed to balance judicial accountability with the independence of the judiciary. It applies to judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and is rooted in Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution of India. Removal can only occur on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity, and the process involves multiple stages, including parliamentary approval and a judicial inquiry. Below is a comprehensive explanation of each step, enriched with context, legal nuances, and practical examples.

Legal Framework

Constitutional Provisions:

Article 124(4): A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed by an order of the President, passed after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a special majority, on grounds of proven misbehavior or incapacity.

Article 217: Similar provisions apply to High Court judges.

Article 124(5): Empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for presenting the address and investigating the charges through law, leading to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Article 218: Extends the same constitutional protections to High Court judges as Supreme Court judges.

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Provides the statutory mechanism for initiating and conducting the inquiry process.
• Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969: Supplement the Act with procedural details for the inquiry committee’s operations.

Grounds for Removal

• Misbehavior: Includes willful misconduct, corruption, lack of integrity, or acts involving moral turpitude. The term is not exhaustively defined but has been clarified through judicial pronouncements (e.g., C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, 1995, where the Supreme Court emphasized acts undermining public confidence in the judiciary).
• Incapacity: Refers to physical or mental inability to discharge judicial duties, such as severe health issues or mental incapacitation.

Detailed Procedure

1. Initiation of the Motion

• Who Can Initiate: The process begins with a notice of motion for removal, which can be moved in either House of Parliament:

Lok Sabha: Requires signatures of at least 100 members.

Rajya Sabha: Requires signatures of at least 50 members.

• Submission: The notice is submitted in writing to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha, typically the Vice-President of India).
• Content: The notice must specify the charges of misbehavior or incapacity and include supporting evidence or grounds for the allegations.
• Purpose: This high threshold (100/50 members) ensures that frivolous or politically motivated motions are minimized.

2. Admission or Rejection of the Motion

• Authority: The Speaker or Chairman has the discretion to admit or reject the motion.
• Process:

• • They may consult individuals or examine relevant materials (e.g., documents, complaints, or preliminary evidence).
  • There is no obligation to admit the motion, and no formal hearing is required at this stage.
  • The decision is based on whether the charges appear prima facie valid and warrant further investigation.

• Outcome:

• • If rejected, the process ends, and no further action is taken.
  • If admitted, the process moves to the formation of an inquiry committee.

• Safeguard: The Speaker/Chairman’s discretionary power acts as a filter to prevent misuse of the process for political or personal vendettas.

3. Constitution of the Inquiry Committee

• Formation:

• • Upon admission of the motion, the Speaker or Chairman constitutes a three-member Inquiry Committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
  • Composition:

• • • One Supreme Court judge (or the Chief Justice of India).
    • One Chief Justice of a High Court.
    • One distinguished jurist (a person with legal expertise, as determined by the Speaker/Chairman).
  • If motions are admitted in both Houses, the Speaker and Chairman jointly form the committee to avoid duplication.
• Special Case:
  • If notices are passed in both Houses on the same day, the Act prohibits the formation of a committee, potentially stalling the process. This rare scenario underscores the need for coordination between the Houses.
• Role: The committee acts as an independent fact-finding body, functioning like a quasi-judicial tribunal.

4. Investigation by the Inquiry Committee

• Procedure:

The committee operates under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.

Framing Charges: The committee formulates specific charges based on the allegations in the motion.

Notice to Judge: A copy of the charges is served to the judge, who is given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Written Defense: The judge can submit a written statement defending themselves.

Hearing:

• The judge is entitled to a fair hearing, adhering to principles of natural justice.
• They can cross-examine witnesses, present evidence, and be represented by legal counsel if permitted by the committee.

Evidence Collection: The committee examines documents, records witness testimonies, and evaluates all relevant material to ascertain the truth of the charges.

• Standard of Proof: The committee seeks proof beyond reasonable doubt for misbehavior, given the gravity of the allegations, though the Act does not explicitly define the standard.
• Outcome: The committee concludes whether the charges of misbehavior or incapacity are substantiated or not substantiated.

5. Submission of the Committee’s Report

• Report Preparation:

• • The committee prepares a detailed report summarizing its findings, including whether the judge is guilty or not guilty of the charges.
  • The report includes evidence, reasoning, and conclusions.

• Submission:

• • The report is submitted to the Speaker or Chairman, who tables it before the respective House of Parliament.

• Outcomes:

Not Guilty: If the committee finds no evidence of misbehavior or incapacity, the motion is dropped, and the process terminates.

Guilty: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the report forms the basis for further parliamentary action.

• Transparency: The tabling of the report ensures parliamentary oversight and public awareness, though sensitive details may be handled discreetly.

6. Parliamentary Consideration and Voting

• Debate:

• • The motion, along with the committee’s report, is debated in both Houses of Parliament.
  • Members discuss the findings, the judge’s conduct, and the implications of removal.

• Voting Requirement:

The motion must be passed by a special majority in each House:

• • • A majority of the total membership of the House (e.g., 273 out of 545 in Lok Sabha, 123 out of 245 in Rajya Sabha, as of current strength).
    • A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in the same session.

• Both Houses must pass the motion in the same parliamentary session for it to be valid.

• Challenges:

• • The special majority requirement makes removal politically challenging, as it requires cross-party consensus.
  • Political affiliations or coalition dynamics can influence voting, as seen in past cases.

• Outcome:

• • If the motion fails in either House, the process ends, and the judge remains in office.
  • If passed by both Houses, the process advances to the final stage.

7. Presidential Order

• Final Step:

• • The passed motion is presented to the President of India as an address from Parliament.
  • The President issues an order for the removal of the judge, effective immediately.

• Effect:

• • The judge ceases to hold office upon the President’s order.
  • The judge loses associated privileges, though resignation before this stage may allow retention of certain benefits (e.g., pension).