Author: Mamatha A G, a student at CMR University School of Legal Studies
INTRODUCTION
In India’s federal constitution, the judiciary plays an important role in maintaining an independent democratic system. Envisioned by the constitution’s framers as separate from the executive and legislative branches, the Supreme Court stands as the highest legal authority, ensuring uniformity in law application and safeguarding fundamental rights. Judicial independence is enshrined in stringent provisions: judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the President after consultation, with removal possible only upon proven misbehaviour or incapacity, as per Article 124(4). The Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 mandates a rigorous impeachment process, requiring resolutions from numerous MPs and investigation by a committee of legal experts. Parliament must then pass a resolution with a two-thirds majority in both houses, after which the President orders the judge’s removal. This process underscores the solemn duty of ensuring judicial accountability and upholding judicial integrity.
OVERVIEW OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS IN INDIA:
The impeachment process in India, governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is a meticulous procedure designed to uphold judicial accountability and the integrity of the judiciary.
Initiation of Removal Proceedings:
Removal proceedings against a Supreme Court or High Court judge can be initiated in either house of Parliament. A minimum of 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha must submit a signed notice to the Speaker or Chairman, respectively. The Speaker or Chairman reviews the notice and decides whether to admit it after consulting relevant individuals and materials.
Constitution of an Inquiry Committee:
Upon admission of the motion, the Speaker or Chairman forms an Inquiry Committee as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This Committee typically comprises a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist chosen by the Speaker or Chairman. The Committee’s mandate is to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations.
Investigation and Report Submission:
The Inquiry Committee conducts a detailed investigation and submits its findings in a formal report to the Speaker or Chairman. If the report concludes that the judge is guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal proceeds to a vote in both houses of Parliament.
Voting in Parliament:
The motion must be adopted in each house by a majority of the total membership and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting. If adopted by these majorities in one house, the motion is then sent to the other house for a similar vote.
Presidential Order:
After adoption of the motion by both houses of Parliament, it is forwarded to the President of India. The President then issues an order for the removal of the judge in accordance with Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
This comprehensive process highlights the gravity of impeachment in India, emphasizing the nation’s commitment to judicial accountability and the preservation of the judiciary’s independence and integrity. It ensures that the removal of a judge is conducted with utmost scrutiny and adherence to constitutional principles, reinforcing public trust in the judicial system.
EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT:
Foundation Phase (1964)
- Introduction of Legislation:
- In 1964, Parliament took the pioneering step of introducing legislation to establish procedural modalities for the removal of judges.
- A bill was presented in the Lok Sabha, aiming to empower the President to order investigations into allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity among judges.
- Formation of Joint Committee:
- Recognizing the sensitivity of judicial independence, a joint committee comprising members from both houses was formed to scrutinize the proposed legislation.
- The committee emphasized the importance of maintaining parliamentary oversight over judicial proceedings to ensure judicial independence, advocating for minimal executive involvement in the investigation process.
- Four-Step Process:
- The joint committee proposed a systematic four-step process for the removal of judges, aiming to balance accountability with judicial autonomy.
- The process included a majority requiring a significant number of MPs to sign a notice of motion for removal, ensuring the seriousness of the allegations.
- The discretionary power vested in the Speaker or Chairperson allowed for careful consideration of the merit of each motion, safeguarding against frivolous or politically motivated attempts to impeach judges.
- Upon acceptance of the motion, a committee was to be constituted to conduct a thorough investigation into the grounds for removal, ensuring fairness and due process.
- Finally, Parliament would consider the motion based on the committee’s findings, ensuring accountability while upholding the principles of natural justice.
- Lapse of the Bill:
- Despite the comprehensive framework proposed by the joint committee, the 1964 Bill lapsed following the dissolution of the Third Lok Sabha.
However, the groundwork laid during this phase set the stage for subsequent legislative efforts to refine and institutionalize the process of judicial impeachment in India.
Following India’s adoption of the Constitution in 1950, the establishment of an independent judiciary was pivotal, despite not fully adopting the theory of separation of powers. The judiciary was designed as a vigilant guardian of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, preventing arbitrary legislative and executive actions. The judge removal process began in 1964 with mechanisms aimed at judicial accountability but faced challenges like complexity, political interference, and transparency issues. The 1968 reforms sought to streamline procedures and increase transparency, yet concerns persisted over political influence on impeachment, potentially undermining judicial independence. While the 1964 phase laid the groundwork for judicial accountability, ongoing reforms are crucial to ensure a fair and impartial judge removal process in India.
Reform Phase (1968):
The reform phase in 1968 brought about significant changes and adaptations to the process of judge removal which was outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968:
Initiation of Complaint: Under the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968, a complaint against a judge can be made through a resolution by either 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
Constitution of Inquiry Committee: Upon receipt of the complaint, the presiding officer (Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or Speaker of the Lok Sabha) constitutes a three-member committee comprising judges and a jurist to investigate the allegations. This committee is formed in accordance with the provisions of the 1968 Act.
Investigation: The committee, as per the provisions of the 1968 Act, investigates the charges and determines if impeachment proceedings should be initiated. The Act provides guidelines for conducting the investigation and reporting its findings.
Debate and Vote: If the committee recommends impeachment, the matter is debated in both houses of Parliament. The Act likely specifies the procedural details for the debate and voting process, ensuring compliance with constitutional provisions.
Outcome: If the motion for impeachment is passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses during the same session, the Act may outline the subsequent steps, including the issuance of a Presidential order for the removal of the judge from office.
Has any judge been Impeached after Independence:
the cases related to the impeachment process of judges based on the reformation bill of judicial impeachment in 1968:
Case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): This was the first impeachment case involving Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court. The motion for his removal was initiated in the Lok Sabha in May 1993 on charges related to financial and administrative misconduct. Despite the Committee finding him guilty of misbehavior, the motion failed to secure the requisite majority in the House.
In the case of K Veeraswami v Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that prior written consent from the Chief Justice of India is necessary before any parliamentary proceedings can be initiated for the prosecution of a judge from a High Court or the Supreme Court. This decision significantly empowered judges by ensuring a procedural safeguard before such actions could proceed.
In the case of Justice Soumitra Sen (2010-2011), he faced impeachment from the Rajya Sabha on charges related to misappropriation of funds and misrepresentation before the Calcutta High Court. Following the Rajya Sabha’s decision in favor of his impeachment, Justice Sen resigned on September 1, 2011. In his resignation letter, he stated that since the Rajya Sabha had decided he should not continue as a judge, he chose not to pursue the matter further in the Lok Sabha and resigned instead. While the Rajya Sabha voted for his impeachment, the Lok Sabha did not proceed with the motion for his removal.
Case of Justice P.D. Dinakaran (2009-2011): Justice Paul Daniel Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, faced charges of corruption. Multiple notices of motion for his removal were submitted to the Rajya Sabha. However, before the Committee could complete its investigation, Justice Dinakaran resigned, rendering the motion infructuous.
Case of Justice S.K. Gangele (2015-2017): Justice S.K. Gangele, a Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, faced a motion for removal based on charges of misconduct. Despite the constitution of an inquiry committee, the charges were not proved, and the motion did not result in the judge’s removal., which established procedural safeguards and mechanisms for the impeachment of judges in India.
Impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India:
In 2018, a significant attempt to initiate impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by 64 members of the Rajya Sabha sparked a contentious debate over the impeachment process in India. This move, unprecedented in its scope and implications, raised fundamental questions about the procedure outlined in the Constitution of India, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.
Initiation of Impeachment Proceedings:
The process begins with a notice of motion, requiring support from 100 MPs of the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs of the Rajya Sabha. In this case, the motion was supported by 64 members of the Rajya Sabha, marking a significant parliamentary challenge to the Chief Justice’s tenure.
Rejection and Legal Challenges:
Following its submission, the notice of motion faced a critical decision by Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu, who ultimately rejected the motion. This decision triggered immediate legal challenges and debates regarding the grounds for rejection and the Chairman’s discretionary powers in accepting or refusing such motions.
Key Legal Arguments and Discussions:
The subsequent legal proceedings unfolded before a five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Arun Mishra, and A.K. Goel. The hearings encompassed several crucial arguments and discussions:
Objections by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal:
Attorney General K.K. Venugopal raised objections to the participation of Mr. Kapil Sibal in the proceedings. His objection centered on Sibal’s involvement in moving the impeachment motion, raising concerns about impartiality and potential conflicts of interest in the legal proceedings.
Emphasis on Judicial Dignity and Independence:
Mr. Kapil Sibal, representing the aggrieved parties, underscored the paramount importance of upholding judicial dignity and independence. His arguments aimed to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to established legal principles throughout the impeachment process.
Challenges Against the CJI’s Authority as ‘Master of the Roster’:
Sibal also challenged the unchecked authority of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as the ‘master of the roster.’ This authority allows the CJI to allocate cases to different benches, raising concerns about potential abuses of power and their implications for institutional integrity and accountability within the judiciary.
Questioning the Constitutionality of the Bench:
During the hearings, doubts were raised about the constitutionality of the bench convened to review the impeachment motion. Questions focused on whether proper procedures were followed in its formation and the authority of the CJI to constitute such a bench, highlighting the need to adhere strictly to constitutional norms and due process.
Implications and Legal Complexity:
The legal proceedings surrounding Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s impeachment motion underscored the intricate legal and constitutional challenges inherent in the impeachment process. The case highlighted the delicate balance between judicial independence, parliamentary oversight, and constitutional principles within India’s legal framework.
The attempt to impeach Chief Justice Dipak Misra in 2018 brought to the forefront critical issues concerning the accountability of judges, the independence of the judiciary, and the constitutional procedures governing their removal. It underscored the complexity and sensitivity of impeachment proceedings, serving as a pivotal moment in India’s legal history where the intersection of judicial powers, parliamentary responsibilities, and constitutional safeguards was scrutinized in unprecedented detail. As India continues to evolve its legal frameworks, the case remains a significant reference point for debates on judicial accountability and the preservation of institutional integrity within the judiciary.
CONCLUSION
The impeachment process for judges, including the Chief Justice of India, underscores India’s commitment to judicial accountability and judiciary integrity. Rooted in constitutional provisions and legislative enactments, it upholds the rule of law, judicial independence, and public trust. Despite challenges highlighted by attempts like that against Chief Justice Dipak Misra, India’s democratic institutions have proven resilient. Legal debates around impeachment reflect the balance between separation of powers, judicial autonomy, and parliamentary oversight, ensuring transparency and accountability. Evolving since its 1964 inception and subsequent 1968 reforms, the process continually refines mechanisms for judicial integrity while preserving judicial independence. Despite controversies, impeachment remains vital for justice, fairness, and equality. It symbolizes India’s dedication to constitutionalism, safeguarding fundamental rights, and maintaining institutional integrity amid evolving societal and legal landscapes.
FAQs
1.What is the process for impeaching a judge in India?
The impeachment process begins with a notice of motion signed by a minimum number of MPs in either house of Parliament. It undergoes scrutiny by the Speaker/Chairman and, if admitted, is investigated by an Inquiry Committee. Parliament then votes on the motion, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses. If passed, the President issues an order for removal.
2.What were the allegations against Chief Justice Dipak Misra in 2018?
The motion listed five allegations of misbehaviour against Chief Justice Dipak Misra, including issues related to judicial and administrative decisions.
3.Why was the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dipak Misra rejected?
Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu rejected the motion, citing lack of substantial merit in the allegations and concerns over procedural fairness. This decision triggered legal challenges and debates.
4. legal challenges arose from the rejection of the impeachment motion?
Legal challenges focused on the Chairman’s discretionary powers in accepting or rejecting the motion, the constitutionality of the Inquiry Committee, and procedural fairness in the impeachment process.
5.What are the implications of Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s impeachment attempt on India’s judiciary?
The attempt highlighted the complexities of balancing judicial independence with parliamentary oversight. It underscored the need for transparent and fair procedures in judge removal processes, influencing ongoing debates on judicial accountability and institutional integrity.
