"Parliamentary inquiry panel finds judicial misconduct charges proved in cash-discovery case"
Article 124(4)
Constitutional provision for removal of Supreme Court judges by Presidential order after special parliamentary majority.
Special Majority (Judicial Removal)
Majority of total House membership AND two-thirds of members present and voting, required in both Houses.
The removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is among the most constitutionally demanding procedures in India's legal order. Article 124(4) of the Constitution provides that a Supreme Court judge may be removed by the President only upon an address passed by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of members present and voting — on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Article 218 extends this framework to High Court judges by applying Article 124(4) to them, while Article 217(1)(b) separately enumerates the grounds for High Court judge removal. The procedural mechanics are elaborated in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which prescribes a two-stage process: first, a parliamentary inquiry committee investigates and frames charges; second, if charges are proved, Parliament votes on the removal address to the President.
The constitutional design deliberately makes removal difficult to protect judicial independence from legislative and executive pressure — a value the framers considered essential to the rule of law. The threshold is intentionally high: a simple parliamentary majority is insufficient. The closest historical precedent is the Justice V. Ramaswami case (1993), where a three-member inquiry committee found the judge guilty of wilful misuse of office, yet the removal motion failed because the ruling party abstained. Though a two-thirds majority of members present supported the motion, it fell short of the majority of the total membership of the House — illustrating how the double-majority threshold creates a structural vulnerability to political calculation. No judge has ever been successfully removed in India's constitutional history.
Subsequent cases — including those involving Justices Dinakaran and Sen — ended in resignation before Parliament could vote, establishing an informal convention that resignation terminates the inquiry. This convention has never been conclusively tested against the explicit text of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which does not expressly provide for lapse of proceedings upon resignation — a lacuna that the current case has brought into sharp focus.
Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, a removal motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. The presiding officer — the Speaker or the Chairman — may admit or reject the motion. If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted comprising a sitting Supreme Court judge, a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. This composition ensures that the investigative body has both judicial expertise and independence from the political branches.
Once constituted, the committee frames articles of charges and supplies the judge with all material to be relied upon. The process is quasi-judicial and adversarial: the judge is treated as a party with full procedural rights, including the right to submit a defence statement, be represented by advocates, examine witnesses, and cross-examine witnesses against them. …
Consider the following statements:
1.The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2.The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
3.The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
4.If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
We have adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model?
1.As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign, but in India, the power of the Parliament to make laws is limited.
2.In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Consider the following statements regarding the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:
1.A removal motion in the Lok Sabha must be signed by at least 100 members before it can be admitted by the Speaker.
2.The inquiry committee constituted under the Act must include a sitting Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
3.The Act expressly provides that inquiry proceedings lapse automatically upon the resignation of the judge concerned.
4.The constitutional threshold for removal requires a majority of total membership of each House and two-thirds of members present and voting.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
With reference to the constitutional provisions governing judicial conduct and removal in India, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1.Article 121 prohibits Parliament from discussing the conduct of a Supreme Court judge except when a motion for removal is under consideration.
2.The Constitution of India explicitly defines what constitutes 'proved misbehaviour' for the purpose of judicial removal.
3.The President of India can remove a High Court judge on the recommendation of the Supreme Court without a parliamentary address.
Which of the following best explains why the removal motion against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 failed, despite the inquiry committee finding charges proved?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account