Introduction

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is the principal law that lays down the statutory procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court.
• It operationalises Article 124(5) of the Constitution, under which Parliament may regulate the procedure for presenting an address to the President for removal of a judge.
• The Act came into force on 1 January 1969 and is supplemented by the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.

Constitutional basis

• The removal of a Supreme Court judge is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
• Under Article 124(4), a judge can be removed only by the President, after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by:
  • a majority of the total membership of that House, and
  • a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting
• The grounds of removal are only:
  • proved misbehaviour, or
  • incapacity
• For High Court judges, Article 217(1)(b) applies the same removal mechanism as Article 124(4).

Purpose of the Act

• The Act was enacted to regulate:
  • the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of judges
  • the presentation of an address by Parliament to the President for removal
• Its purpose is not to create new grounds of removal, but to provide the institutional process for examining allegations before Parliament takes up a removal motion.

Scope of the Act

• The Act applies to:
  • Judges of the Supreme Court
  • Judges of the High Courts
• It deals specifically with removal on the constitutional grounds of:
  • proved misbehaviour
  • incapacity

Who can initiate the process

• A motion for removal can be introduced in either House of Parliament.
• The motion must be supported by:
  • at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or
  • at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha
• The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may:
  • admit the motion, or
  • refuse to admit it

Inquiry committee

• If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or Chairman constitutes a three-member inquiry committee.
• The committee consists of:
  • a Judge of the Supreme Court
  • a Chief Justice of a High Court
  • a distinguished jurist
• The committee investigates the allegations and submits its report on whether the judge is guilty of misbehaviour or suffers from incapacity.

Procedure after committee report

• If the committee finds that the judge is not guilty, the matter goes no further.
• If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal can be taken up for consideration in Parliament.
• Parliament must then pass the motion in both Houses separately with the special majority required by the Constitution.
• Only after that can the President issue the order of removal.

Nature of removal process

• The process is often referred to in public discourse as impeachment of judges, but the Constitution technically uses the expression removal by the President after an address by Parliament.
• The Act therefore creates a quasi-judicial preliminary inquiry mechanism, while the final removal remains a constitutional-parliamentary process.

Safeguards built into the Act

• The law contains several safeguards to preserve judicial independence and prevent frivolous complaints:
  • high threshold of MPs required to initiate a motion
  • discretion of the Speaker/Chairman to admit or reject the motion
  • inquiry by a high-level three-member committee
  • special majority in both Houses of Parliament
• These safeguards make removal deliberately difficult, so that judges are not threatened by ordinary political disagreement.

Significance of the Act

• The Act is important because it tries to balance two constitutional values:
  • judicial independence
  • judicial accountability
• It ensures that judges of the higher judiciary cannot be removed casually, but also provides a formal mechanism where serious allegations can be examined institutionally.

Relation with judicial accountability

• The Act is a key part of India’s higher judiciary accountability framework.
• It does not deal with routine disciplinary control, because judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts do not function under ordinary executive or departmental control.
• Instead, the Act provides a special constitutional route for dealing with extreme cases involving serious misconduct or incapacity.

Practical experience in India

• In practice, removal under this framework is extremely rare.
• India has seen inquiry proceedings and motions against some judges, but actual removal through completion of the full constitutional process has not become common.
• This shows both:
  • the high threshold of the process
  • the political and institutional complexity involved in removing a judge of the higher judiciary

Criticism and concerns

• The framework has often been discussed critically on grounds such as:
  • the process is slow and politically difficult
  • the threshold is so high that accountability may become ineffective in practice
  • Parliament-based removal can introduce a political dimension into what is ultimately a question of judicial conduct
• At the same time, defenders of the framework argue that a difficult process is necessary to protect judges from political pressure and preserve judicial independence. This is a constitutional inference drawn from the structure of Articles 124 and 217 along with the Act’s high procedural safeguards.

Difference from ordinary service law

• Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are not removable by the executive through ordinary disciplinary proceedings.
• Their tenure protection is constitutionally secured, and removal is possible only through the special constitutional process read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

Broader constitutional significance

• The Act reflects the constitutional idea that higher judges must enjoy:
  • security of tenure
  • insulation from executive interference
  • accountability through a structured constitutional process
• It is therefore closely connected with:
  • separation of powers
  • independence of the judiciary
  • rule of law
  • checks and balances in a constitutional democracy

Conclusion

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is the statutory framework that regulates the investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Its core role is to translate the constitutional removal provisions into a workable legal process.
• The Act remains an important example of how the Constitution tries to preserve both judicial independence and judicial accountability through a carefully guarded removal mechanism.