Removing a Supreme Court judge is deliberately hard. The Constitution sets the grounds. A 1968 law sets the mechanics — and its details are a favourite UPSC trap.
mcqquestion.com
Judge Impeachment
Article 124(4) + 1968 Act
124(4)Removal only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity
1968 ActJudges (Inquiry) Act lays out the full procedure
RefusalSpeaker/Chairman can refuse to admit a motion
High bar3-member committee investigates; high voting threshold
The trap: Article 124(4) sets the grounds; the 1968 Act sets the mechanics. Admission can be refused.
Must Know
The Removal Mechanism
The Constitution Sets the Ground
- Article 124(4) A Supreme Court judge can be removed only on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Why it matters This is the only constitutional ground for removal — no other reason suffices.
- High Court too Article 218 extends the same protection to High Court judges.
- So Removal requires proved misbehaviour or incapacity, not mere disagreement.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 Fills in the Details
- The law Parliament fills the gap through ordinary law — the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- What it covers It lays out the full impeachment procedure: how a motion starts, is investigated and voted on.
- Why it matters The Act’s procedural details are a favourite UPSC trap.
- So Article 124(4) sets the grounds; the 1968 Act sets the mechanics.
The Speaker Can Refuse a Motion
- Admission stage A common misconception is that the Speaker or Rajya Sabha Chairman must accept any removal motion.
- The truth The 1968 Act gives them real discretion — they can refuse to admit a motion.
- Why it matters This admission discretion is the first gate that filters frivolous motions.
- So The Speaker/Chairman can refuse to admit a removal motion.
Good to Know
The Process in Action
A Committee Investigates First
- Inquiry stage If a motion is admitted, a three-member committee investigates the charges.
- Membership It includes a Supreme Court or High Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist.
- Why it matters The independent inquiry separates fact-finding from political voting.
- So A three-member judicial committee investigates before any vote.
The Voting Threshold Is High
- Special majority Each House must pass the motion separately.
- Two requirements It needs a majority of that House’s total membership AND at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
- Why it matters This double threshold makes removal exceptionally hard.
- So Removal needs a special majority in both Houses, not a simple one.
Why This Matters
- Judicial independence The process is deliberately layered to protect judges from easy removal.
- The layers Discretion to refuse → independent inquiry → special majority in both Houses.
- Why it matters Each layer makes removal harder, protecting judicial independence.
- So The difficulty of removal is a deliberate design feature.
Test Yourself
Great to Know
Exam View
Who Has Been Removed?
- The record No Supreme Court judge has ever been removed through this process.
- Why it matters The high thresholds mean removal has never succeeded.
- Example Motions like the 1993 attempt against Justice V. Ramaswami did not lead to removal.
- So The record shows how effective the barriers are in practice.
- Result The special majority and inquiry layers together make actual removal near-impossible.
Exam Angle
- Trap option ‘Simple majority removes a judge’ is wrong — it needs a special majority.
- Distractor The Speaker must accept any motion is false — they can refuse.
- Fact tested Removal requires proved misbehaviour or incapacity, via the 1968 Act’s inquiry.
- Eliminate Check the double-majority threshold in each option.
- Try Attempt the linked MCQs on impeachment thresholds.
- So Apply this elimination test to each option, because the trap usually hides in who is bound by the rule, not in the surface wording.
Current Affairs
Why It Matters Today
Why It Matters Today
- Development The impeachment process is a pillar of judicial independence and the rule of law.
- Why it matters Recent debates on judicial accountability keep this mechanism relevant.
- So what Expect current-affairs questions tying the removal process to judicial independence.
Leave a Reply