Introduction
Article 124(4) lays down the constitutional procedure for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court. It provides that a Judge can be removed only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity through a rigorous process involving both Houses of Parliament and the President of India.
The provision ensures a balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence, protecting judges from arbitrary removal.
Constitutional Provision
Article 124(4) states that a Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from office except by an order of the President, passed 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,
on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
This is known as a special majority.
Grounds for Removal
A Judge may be removed only on:
- Proved misbehaviour, or
- Incapacity.
The Constitution does not define these terms. Their determination is made through the inquiry process prescribed by Parliament.
Procedure for Removal
1. Initiation of Motion
- A removal motion may be introduced in:
- Lok Sabha by at least 100 Members, or
- Rajya Sabha by at least 50 Members.
2. Admission of Motion
- The Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha decides whether to admit the motion.
3. Inquiry
- If admitted, an inquiry committee is constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- The committee investigates the allegations and gives the Judge an opportunity to be heard.
4. Parliamentary Approval
- If the committee finds the Judge guilty of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion is taken up in both Houses.
- Each House must pass the motion separately with the special majority prescribed under Article 124(4).
5. Removal by the President
- After both Houses pass the motion, the President issues the order removing the Judge.
Related Constitutional Provisions
- Article 124(5): Empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Article 218: Extends the same removal procedure to Judges of High Courts.
Significance
Protects Judicial Independence
Prevents arbitrary removal by the Executive.
Ensures Judicial Accountability
Provides a constitutional mechanism to remove judges guilty of serious misconduct or incapacity.
Upholds Separation of Powers
Requires the participation of both the Legislature and the Executive while safeguarding the Judiciary.
Strengthens Public Confidence
Promotes integrity and credibility of the judicial system.
Landmark Judgments
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
- The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of judicial independence while recognising that judges are accountable under the Constitution.
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)
- While dealing primarily with judicial appointments, the Court reaffirmed that judicial independence is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, making the stringent removal process under Article 124(4) an essential safeguard.
Challenges
- The impeachment process is lengthy and politically demanding.
- The high threshold of a special majority makes removal difficult.
- Judges may resign before the completion of impeachment proceedings.
- Limited mechanisms exist to address misconduct that does not warrant impeachment.
Way Forward
- Strengthen the in-house judicial accountability mechanism.
- Establish an independent framework to address non-impeachable misconduct.
- Improve transparency while preserving judicial independence.
- Ensure timely disposal of complaints against judges.
Conclusion
Article 124(4) provides a carefully balanced constitutional mechanism for the removal of Supreme Court Judges on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. By requiring an independent inquiry, a special majority in Parliament, and a Presidential order, it safeguards both the independence and accountability of the judiciary, which are fundamental to India’s constitutional democracy.
