Article By: Bhanupriya Sharma

ABSTRACT

Judge impeachment is an important part of judicial accountability because it ensures that members of the judiciary follow ethical and legal guidelines. This research paper looks at the procedure, reasons, and consequences of judicial impeachment, with an emphasis on preserving a balance between judicial independence and accountability. The paper investigates global perspectives on impeachment and compares legal frameworks from various jurisdictions. It also examines significant instances to better understand the political and legal issues involved in removing judges from office. Furthermore, the article analyzes proposed modifications to improve the effectiveness of judicial impeachment while preventing its misuse for political ends. The findings emphasize the need of a transparent, fair, and nonpartisan approach to judicial impeachment in maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

Keywords: Judicial impeachment, judicial independence, judicial accountability, political influence, legal frameworks.

GROUNDS OF IMPEACHMENT 

• The grounds for removing Supreme Court or High Court justices include “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity.”
• The removal process necessitates the submission of an address to the President, which must be approved by both Houses of Parliament in the same session.
• Parliamentary approval needs either an absolute majority of each House’s total membership or a majority of at least two-thirds of the members present and voting.
• For a motion to be valid, both Houses must pass it with a majority in the same legislative session.
• If Parliament passes the resolution with the required majority, the President must issue an order to remove the judge from office.
• This arduous process guarantees that judges are not removed arbitrarily and needs significant parliamentary support, so ensuring judicial independence while retaining accountability.

Procedure followed

• The impeachment motion must be filed in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha and approved by the respective presiding authority (Speaker or Chairperson). 
• The Judges (Inquiry) Act then establishes a three-member committee, which includes: 

1.A Supreme Court justice. 2.A Chief Justice of the High Court 

3.A prominent jurist 

• This committee, like a trial court, investigates and determines guilt. Parliamentary Approval Requirements: 
• For successful impeachment, the motion must include either: Two-thirds of current MPs voting in favor, or An overwhelming majority in each House.

OUTCOME

• If the judge is found guilty and successfully impeached, he is removed from office. 
• However, if the judge resigns before the processes are completed, the probe usually ends, and they keep their retirement benefits – a loophole highlighted by multiple examples in Indian judicial history.

JUDICIAL IMPEACHMENT CASES IN INDIA

1.Justice V. Ramaswami Case

• He was the first supreme court judge to face impeachment proceedings for extravagant spending on office official residence.
• He, Controversially, purchased seven maces (including one with silver head) and then transported them with cargo plane.

CURRENT CASE

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav

In December 2024, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court gave a speech at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) event in Prayagraj that generated considerable controversy. During his speech, he allegedly employed disrespectful language towards the Muslim community and proposed that Indian laws should reflect the wishes of the majority. These comments were extensively shared on social media, resulting in widespread public outcry and discussions surrounding judicial impartiality.

In light of the backlash, the Supreme Court took notice of the situation and requested a comprehensive report from the Allahabad High Court concerning Justice Yadav’s statements. Following this, Justice Yadav was summoned to appear before the Supreme Court Collegium, which is headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, to clarify his remarks.

The incident also led to political action; 55 opposition Members of Parliament filed a notice with Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, requesting Justice Yadav’s dismissal for purported misconduct. Chairman Dhankhar recognized the notice, emphasizing that such matters fall solely under the jurisdiction of Parliament and the President. He instructed the Rajya Sabha Secretary General to relay the information to the Supreme Court Secretary General for further evaluation.

In a letter to Chief Justice Arun Bhansali of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Yadav defended his statements, rejecting any notion of hate speech and asserting that his comments aligned with constitutional principles. He expressed concern that his words had been misconstrued by individuals with prejudiced views.

This situation has sparked a wider discussion regarding judicial behavior, freedom of expression, and the systems established to tackle potential biases within the judicial system.

CAN JUDGES ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH RESIGNATION?

Insights from Dinakaran case:

• RTI petitions were submitted by a former legal affairs editor of Frontline, uncovering communication among the three-member committee members and the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha concerning the Dinakaran case. 
• The replies to the RTI requests revealed that both jurist Mohan Gopal and Chairman Justice Aftab Alam felt that the investigation should persist even after Justice Dinakaran’s resignation.
•  In a letter dated August 15, 2011, Mohan Gopal contended that permitting resignation to conclude investigations would grant judges the ability to evade accountability, thereby resulting in an “absurd situation” not intended by the legislature. 

CONCLUSION

The current structure for judicial accountability in India faces considerable obstacles, highlighted by past instances where judges have sidestepped accountability through resigning. This gap enables judges to keep their post-retirement perks even when there are grave allegations against them, a privilege not enjoyed by other public officials. The need to reform the judicial accountability system is especially urgent, as the existing framework permits judges to conclude investigations simply by resigning, which may jeopardize public trust in the judiciary’s integrity.