Article 124 of the Indian Constitution is foundational to the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court. While the initial clauses deal with the composition, appointment, and age of judges, Article 124(4) specifically addresses the critical process for the removal of a Supreme Court judge from their office. This provision is designed to safeguard the independence of the judiciary by making the removal process exceptionally difficult, requiring a rigorous procedure involving both Houses of Parliament and the President.
The procedure laid down in Article 124(4) is often colloquially referred to as ‘impeachment’, although the Constitution uses the term ‘removal’. This complex mechanism ensures that judges cannot be removed based on mere political pressure or executive whim, thus upholding the principles of judicial independence, which is a cornerstone of India’s democratic structure and a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Original Text
The original text of Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India is as follows:
(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his 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 by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Detailed Explanation
Article 124(4) lays down the stringent procedure for removing a judge of the Supreme Court. The process begins with an order issued by the President of India. However, this order cannot be passed unilaterally by the President. It must follow a specific condition: an address by each House of Parliament must be presented to the President in the same session.
The ‘address’ from each House of Parliament must meet a very high threshold of support. It must be supported by two distinct majorities in each House simultaneously:
- A majority of the total membership of that House. This means more than half of the sanctioned strength of the House, regardless of vacancies or absentees.
- A majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in that House. This ensures strong support from those actively participating in the voting process.
Both these conditions must be met independently and concurrently in both the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) before the address can be presented to the President.
The grounds upon which such removal can be initiated are constitutionally limited to proved misbehaviour or incapacity. The Constitution uses the term ‘proved’, implying that the misbehaviour or incapacity must be established through a proper inquiry process.
Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge by law. Pursuant to this power, Parliament enacted the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which details the step-by-step procedure, including the initiation of proceedings (usually through a motion signed by a certain number of MPs), the formation of an inquiry committee, the investigation process, and the subsequent consideration of the committee’s report by Parliament.
This multi-stage process involving legislative deliberation, a judicial-like inquiry, and the final executive order, along with the requirement for overwhelming parliamentary support, makes the removal of a Supreme Court judge an exceptionally difficult task, thereby reinforcing the security of tenure essential for judicial independence. It is important to note that Article 218 of the Constitution extends this same procedure for the removal of a Judge of a High Court.
Detailed Notes
- Initiator of Removal: An order by the President of India.
- Condition for President’s Order: An address by each House of Parliament must be presented to the President in the same session.
- Parliamentary Address Requirement:
- Must originate from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
- Must meet a dual-majority requirement in each House:
- Supported by a majority of the total membership of that House.
- Supported by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in that House.
- Grounds for Removal: Only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- ‘Proved’ Nature: The misbehaviour or incapacity must be established through a formal inquiry process as regulated by law made by Parliament.
- Regulating Law: Article 124(5) grants power to Parliament to enact a law governing the procedure for investigation and presentation of the address.
- Relevant Legislation: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the detailed procedure, including the formation of an inquiry committee.
- Scope: Applies to Judges of the Supreme Court.
- Extension to High Courts: Article 218 makes this removal procedure applicable to Judges of the High Courts as well.
- Objective: Designed to ensure judicial independence and security of tenure by making the removal process extremely difficult and subject to rigorous checks and balances.
- Nature of Procedure: Quasi-judicial in nature, involving legislative deliberation and investigation.
Additional Comments
- The procedure described in Article 124(4) is the only constitutional method for removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge. They cannot be removed by the executive alone.
- The term ‘impeachment’ is often used colloquially, but the Constitution uses ‘removal’ for judges and ‘impeachment’ specifically for the President (Article 61). While similar in involving a parliamentary address, the grounds and procedural details differ.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is crucial as it operationalizes Article 124(4) and (5), detailing the steps from initiation of a motion in Parliament to the inquiry by a committee (usually consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist) and the final parliamentary vote.
- As of late 2023, no judge of the Supreme Court of India has been successfully removed through this procedure, although proceedings have been initiated against some, which either did not reach the voting stage in Parliament or failed to secure the required majority. This underscores the difficulty of the process.
- The high threshold for removal is a deliberate constitutional design choice to insulate the judiciary from political pressure and allow judges to perform their duties without fear of arbitrary dismissal.
Summary
Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution mandates that a Supreme Court judge can only be removed from office by an order of the President. This order can only be issued after an address passed by each House of Parliament has been presented to the President in the same session. The parliamentary address must be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting in each House. Removal is permissible solely on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. This rigorous procedure, further detailed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and also applicable to High Court judges via Article 218, serves as a vital safeguard for judicial independence, ensuring security of tenure against potential executive or political interference.