Article 121 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision aimed at protecting the independence of the judiciary by imposing a restriction on parliamentary discussions regarding the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court judges. This article serves as a safeguard against potential political pressure or unwarranted criticism of judges performing their judicial duties within the legislative body.
The core purpose of Article 121 is to ensure that judges can discharge their functions without fear of reprisal or debate on their decisions and conduct in Parliament, thereby upholding the principle of separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. The only exception carved out is when Parliament is seized of a motion for the removal of a judge, which is a specific constitutional process.
Original Text
121. Restriction on discussion in Parliament with respect to the conduct of Judges.
No discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties save upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge as hereinafter provided.
Detailed Explanation
Article 121 places a direct prohibition on both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) from discussing the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. This restriction applies specifically to the conduct of judges in the discharge of their duties, meaning their actions and decisions while performing their judicial functions.
The underlying rationale is to shield the judiciary from unwarranted political interference and maintain its independence. If Parliament were allowed to routinely discuss or criticize the judicial conduct of judges, it could potentially undermine the authority and impartiality of the courts. Judges need to be able to make decisions based solely on the law and facts, without concern about facing political debate or censure in the legislature.
However, the article provides a specific exception to this general rule. Discussion on the conduct of a judge is permitted when it is in relation to a motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal of that judge. This refers to the impeachment process outlined in Article 124(4) and (5) for Supreme Court judges and Article 217 read with Article 124(4) and (5) for High Court judges. The process for removal is rigorous and requires a specific motion supported by a certain number of members, an inquiry into the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity, and then voting in Parliament. Only when such a removal motion is under consideration can the conduct of the judge be discussed in Parliament.
This exception is necessary because the removal process inherently requires Parliament to examine and discuss the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge. The article effectively draws a line: ordinary discussion or criticism of judicial conduct is prohibited, but discussion related to the extraordinary measure of judicial removal is allowed as part of the constitutional procedure.
Detailed Notes
- Prohibits discussion in Parliament (both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
- The prohibition is concerning the conduct of judges.
- Applies to judges of the Supreme Court of India.
- Applies to judges of the High Courts in the States.
- The restriction is specifically on conduct in the discharge of their duties (judicial functions).
- Aim is to protect the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
- Prevents political pressure and unwarranted criticism of judicial decisions in Parliament.
- Exception: Discussion is permitted when it relates to a motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal of a judge.
- This exception aligns with the impeachment process for judges under Articles 124(4) and 217.
- During the impeachment proceedings, Parliament is constitutionally empowered to discuss the alleged grounds for removal, which involve the judge’s conduct.
- Rule 352(v) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha reflects this constitutional restriction, stating that “no member shall refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending, in such a manner as might prejudice the decision” and also prohibits discussion on the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of their duties save when a motion for impeachment is under consideration.
- Similar provisions exist in the Rules of Procedure of the Rajya Sabha.
Additional Comments
- This article, along with others like Article 122 (Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Parliament) and Article 212 (Courts not to inquire into proceedings of Legislatures), reinforces the principle of separation of powers and mutual respect between the legislature and the judiciary.
- While parliamentary discussion on judicial conduct is restricted, other avenues exist for addressing concerns about judges, such as the complaints mechanism within the judiciary or the constitutional process of removal.
- The restriction is on discussing conduct in the discharge of duties. Discussions about a judge’s conduct outside their official duties might not fall strictly under this restriction, though such instances could potentially become grounds for removal proceedings if they amount to ‘misbehaviour’.
- The article is vital for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary by shielding judges from partisan political attacks in the legislature based on their judgments.
Summary
Article 121 of the Indian Constitution restricts discussion in Parliament regarding the conduct of Supreme Court and High Court judges while performing their official duties. This restriction is a safeguard for judicial independence, preventing political interference and unwarranted criticism within the legislature. The sole exception to this prohibition is when Parliament is considering a motion for the removal (impeachment) of a judge, during which their conduct can be discussed as part of the constitutional process. This provision helps uphold the separation of powers and allows judges to function without fear of undue political pressure.