Impeachment Process and Judicial Accountability in India

Why in News?

Recently, an impeachment motion has been considered against a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court following controversial remarks made at an event organized by a religious organization. The remarks, which were perceived by many as communally charged, have raised concerns about the judge's judicial propriety and impartiality.

What is the Impeachment Process for Judges in India?

Impeachment, though not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, refers to the process by which a judge can be removed from office by Parliament. It serves as a crucial mechanism for judicial accountability while preserving the independence of the judiciary.

Constitutional Safeguards and Grounds for Impeachment

The Indian Constitution provides specific safeguards and procedures for the impeachment of judges, ensuring that they are not removed arbitrarily.

1. Article 124(4):

   • Outlines the removal process for Supreme Court judges. This process is applicable to High Court judges as well, as per Article 218.

   • The grounds for impeachment are "proved misbehavior" and "incapacity".

2. Proved Misbehavior:

   • This refers to actions or conduct by a judge that breach the ethical and professional standards expected of them.

3. Incapacity:

   • Refers to a judge's inability to perform judicial duties due to physical or mental infirmity.

Steps in the Impeachment Process

1. Initiation of Motion:

   • A motion for impeachment must be supported by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha.

   • The Speaker or Chairman reviews the materials and may consult relevant individuals before deciding whether to admit or reject the motion.

     • For example, in 2018, a motion against Chief Justice Dipak Misra was rejected after due consideration.

     • This ensures that the process cannot be initiated casually or without substantial support.

2. Formation of an Inquiry Committee:

   • If the motion is admitted, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha forms a three-member inquiry committee.

     • The committee comprises:

       1. The Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge.

       2. The Chief Justice of a High Court.

       3. A distinguished jurist.

   • The committee conducts a thorough inquiry, gathers evidence, and examines witnesses to determine the validity of the allegations.

3. Committee Report and Parliamentary Debate:

   • If the judge is found guilty of the alleged misconduct, the inquiry committee submits its report to the presiding officer of the House where the motion was introduced.

   • The report is debated in both Houses of Parliament, where both must approve the motion with a special majority.

     • Special Majority:

       1. A majority of the total membership of the House.

       2. At least two-thirds of the members present and voting.

4. Final Removal by the President:

   • Once the motion is adopted in both Houses, it is presented to the President.

   • The President has the final authority to remove the judge.

Checks and Balances in the Impeachment Process

• High Thresholds for Impeachment:

  • Stringent requirements for initiating and approving the motion protect against the misuse of the process, ensuring it is not used for partisan or frivolous reasons.

• Objective Inquiry by Experts:

  • The inclusion of judicial and legal experts ensures an impartial investigation into the allegations.

• Parliamentary Oversight:

  • Involving both Houses of Parliament ensures accountability through democratic scrutiny.

Instances of Impeachment Attempts

India has witnessed several attempts at impeachment of judges, although none have resulted in complete removal. Notable examples include:

• Justice V. Ramaswami (1993): The impeachment motion against him was not successful.

• Justice Soumitra Sen (2011): While impeachment proceedings were initiated, he resigned before the process could be completed.

These cases highlight the rigorous nature of the impeachment process, reinforcing its role in ensuring judicial accountability.

Regulation of Judges’ Public Statements

1. Freedom of Expression with Responsibility:

   • Judges have the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it may undermine the integrity of their office.

2. Public Statements and Judicial Conduct:

   • Judges' public statements must be measured and avoid any bias or partiality. Statements that harm the dignity of the judiciary can lead to disciplinary action.

3. Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997):

   • These guidelines regulate judges’ conduct, emphasizing independence, impartiality, integrity, and propriety in their public engagements.

4. In-House Mechanisms for Judicial Conduct:

   • The judiciary has internal protocols to address inappropriate conduct by judges, including public statements that compromise their impartiality.

Guidelines for Judicial Restraint

Judges must adhere to the following guidelines to ensure impartiality and uphold judicial propriety:

1. Non-Interference in Political Matters:

   • Judges must refrain from commenting on political events or policies to avoid being perceived as partisan.

2. Refraining from Prejudging Cases:

   • Judges must avoid statements about ongoing cases that may be interpreted as prejudgment or bias.

3. No Participation in Controversial Events:

   • Judges should avoid events or forums that may compromise their independence or align them with specific ideologies or groups.

How Can the Judiciary Uphold Impartiality in a Diverse Society?

1. Adherence to Constitutional Values:

   • Judges must interpret laws based on principles of equality, justice, and secularism as enshrined in the Constitution.

2. Ensuring Representation in the Judiciary:

   • The judiciary should reflect India's diversity through inclusive recruitment, gender balance, and sensitivity to marginalized communities.

3. Training and Sensitization of Judges:

   • Judicial academies should conduct training programs focusing on cultural competence, implicit bias, and social diversity.

4. Objective Decision-Making:

   • Judges must base their decisions solely on facts and evidence, ensuring impartiality and fairness.

Addressing Systemic Biases in the Judiciary

• Review of Precedents: Courts should critically examine past judgments to identify and address instances where biases may have influenced decisions.

• Equitable Interpretation of Laws: Judges must ensure that laws are applied in a manner that promotes justice and equality, especially for disadvantaged groups.

• Proactive Measures for Vulnerable Groups:

  • Social Justice Bench: Specialized benches can address issues affecting marginalized communities.

  • Legal Aid and Pro Bono Services: Ensuring legal assistance for the economically disadvantaged promotes inclusivity and impartiality.

The Role of Civil Society and Media

• Civil society and media play a crucial role as watchdogs, ensuring that the judiciary remains transparent and accountable while maintaining its independence.

• Constructive criticism and scrutiny of judicial actions help uphold judicial accountability without undermining its autonomy.

Conclusion

Impartiality is essential for the credibility and integrity of the judiciary in a diverse democracy like India. Controversial conduct by judges can undermine public trust, but a robust impeachment process, adherence to constitutional values, and proactive measures like training and inclusive recruitment can ensure judicial accountability without compromising independence. By upholding these principles, the judiciary can continue to serve as the guardian of justice and equality in India.