In News:

The recent controversy surrounding remarks made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court has prompted calls for his impeachment. During an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Justice Yadav made statements that were perceived as communal, leading to concerns over judicial impartiality. This incident has reignited discussions about the impeachment process for judges in India, highlighting the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability.

Impeachment Process for Judges in India

In India, the impeachment process for judges, although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, serves as a mechanism to ensure judicial accountability while safeguarding judicial independence. The process is outlined under Articles 124 and 218 of the Indian Constitution, which govern the removal of Supreme Court and High Court judges, respectively.

Grounds for Impeachment

Judges in India can be removed on two grounds:

• Proved Misbehavior: Conduct that breaches the ethical standards of the judiciary.
• Incapacity: A judge’s inability to perform judicial duties due to physical or mental infirmity.

These grounds are clearly specified to prevent arbitrary removal, ensuring that the process remains fair and just.

Steps in the Impeachment Process

• Initiation of Motion: The process begins when a motion for impeachment is introduced in Parliament, either in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. The motion must be supported by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. This ensures significant parliamentary backing before the motion proceeds.
• Formation of an Inquiry Committee: If the motion is admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted. This includes a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. The committee conducts a thorough investigation into the allegations.
• Committee Report and Parliamentary Debate: Following the investigation, the committee submits its findings. If the judge is found guilty, the report is debated in Parliament. Both Houses must approve the motion by a special majority, which requires a two-thirds majority of members present and voting, as well as a majority of the total membership.
• Final Removal by the President: Once the motion is passed in both Houses, it is presented to the President, who issues the removal order.

Safeguards Against Misuse

The impeachment process includes several safeguards to prevent misuse:

• High Threshold for Initiation: The requirement for significant support from Parliament ensures that the process cannot be initiated frivolously.
• Objective Inquiry: The inquiry committee, comprising legal experts, guarantees an impartial investigation.
• Parliamentary Scrutiny: Both Houses of Parliament are involved, ensuring that the process undergoes democratic scrutiny.

Challenges and Precedents

Despite the rigorous process, no Supreme Court judge has been successfully impeached to date. Past attempts, such as those against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) and Chief Justice Dipak Misra (2018), were unsuccessful. These instances demonstrate the complexities involved in the impeachment process.

Guidelines for Judges’ Public Statements

Judges in India are entitled to freedom of speech, but they are expected to exercise caution in public statements to maintain the dignity of their office. The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997) outline key principles for judicial conduct, including:

• Non-Interference in Political Matters: Judges should refrain from commenting on political issues to avoid any perception of bias.
• Impartiality: Judges must avoid statements that could prejudice ongoing cases or align them with specific ideologies.

Upholding Judicial Impartiality in a Diverse Society

To maintain impartiality, judges must interpret laws based on constitutional values of justice, equality, and secularism. Furthermore, the judiciary must ensure representation from diverse backgrounds to foster inclusivity and reduce systemic biases. Training programs focused on cultural competence and social diversity are essential to ensure that judges are sensitive to the needs of marginalized communities.

Conclusion

The impeachment process, while stringent, plays a critical role in maintaining judicial accountability in India. As seen in the case of Justice Yadav, judicial conduct, particularly public statements, must be carefully scrutinized to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Upholding impartiality and adhering to constitutional values are paramount in ensuring that the judiciary continues to function as a neutral arbiter in India’s democracy.