Tenure, Removal and Impeachment of Supreme Court Judges

Judges impeachment removal refers to the constitutional process by which a sitting Supreme Court judge can be removed from office before the normal end of tenure. Because judicial independence depends heavily on judges not fearing arbitrary removal, the Constitution deliberately makes this process difficult, tying it to a special parliamentary majority and a narrow set of grounds.

How a Judge's Tenure Ends

A Supreme Court judge holds office, under Article 124(2), until attaining the age of sixty-five years. Apart from death, a judge's tenure can end in only two other ways: by resignation, through a letter addressed to the President, or by removal in the manner set out in Article 124(4). No fixed term of years is prescribed; tenure runs purely by reference to the age limit unless one of these other contingencies intervenes.

Grounds for Removal

Article 124(4) permits removal by the President only on an address by both Houses of Parliament, and only on one of two grounds: proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Neither term is defined in the Constitution itself, but judicial and constitutional commentary treats "misbehaviour" as wrongful or improper conduct going beyond an honest error of judgment or ordinary negligence. It requires some degree of intent on the part of the judge; wilful abuse of the judicial office, wilful misconduct in office, corruption, lack of integrity, or any other conduct involving moral turpitude would qualify as misbehaviour. "Incapacity" covers cases where a judge is unable to discharge judicial functions, whether from physical or mental infirmity.

The Parliamentary Procedure — Commonly Called Impeachment

The combined effect of Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lays down a specific sequence, popularly termed impeachment even though the Constitution itself never uses that word for judges (it reserves the term for removal of the President):

1. A motion addressed to the President, signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha, is delivered to the Speaker or the Chairman as the case may be.
2. The motion is referred to an inquiry Committee of three members: two judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist.
3. If the Committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or suffering from incapacity, the motion, together with the Committee's report, is taken up for consideration by the House in which it is pending.
4. The motion must then be passed by a special majority in each House — a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.
5. Only after both Houses pass the motion by this special majority does the President order the judge's removal.

Table: Grounds and Procedure at a Glance

Only One Case So Far

The procedure has been invoked only once against a Supreme Court judge, in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami during 1991–93. The inquiry Committee found the judge guilty of the charges. However, when the motion came up in the Lok Sabha, the ruling party's members abstained from voting, and the motion consequently failed to secure the required special majority, so no removal took place. This remains the only instance illustrating how the high procedural bar operates in practice — a Committee finding of guilt does not by itself guarantee removal.

Removal as a Safeguard of Judicial Independence

The difficulty of the removal procedure is deliberate. Constitutional commentary identifies the near-impossibility of removing a judge except through this demanding joint-address mechanism as one of the principal ways the Constitution insulates the judiciary from both the executive and the legislature. Related safeguards reinforce the same goal: a judge's conduct cannot be discussed in Parliament except on a motion for such an address, and salaries cannot ordinarily be reduced to a judge's disadvantage after appointment.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims

• Removal grounds under Article 124(4): only "proved misbehaviour" or "incapacity."
• Motion threshold: 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
• Special majority required: total membership majority + two-thirds of members present and voting, in each House.
• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 details the impeachment procedure; the word "impeachment" itself does not appear in the Constitution for judges.
• Only one impeachment motion has been initiated against a Supreme Court judge (Justice V. Ramaswami, 1991–93), and it failed to pass.

Mains

• Examine how the difficulty of the removal procedure under Article 124(4) contributes to the independence of the judiciary.
• Discuss whether the Ramaswami case exposes weaknesses in the accountability mechanism for judges.

FAQ

Q1. Until what age does a Supreme Court judge hold office? Until attaining the age of sixty-five years, under Article 124(2).

Q2. On what grounds can a Supreme Court judge be removed? Only on the grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, as specified in Article 124(4).

Q3. What majority is needed in Parliament to remove a judge? A majority of the total membership of each House, and a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting in each House.

Q4. Has any Supreme Court judge ever been removed through this procedure? No. The only case, against Justice V. Ramaswami (1991–93), did not secure the required majority in the Lok Sabha.

Q5. Does the Constitution use the word "impeachment" for judges? No. The term "impeachment" is used constitutionally only for removal of the President; the judge-removal process is popularly called impeachment but is not so termed in the constitutional text.

Quick Revision

• Tenure ends at age 65, by resignation, or by removal (Article 124(4)).
• Removal grounds: proved misbehaviour OR incapacity — only these two.
• Motion: 100 LS members / 50 RS members; inquiry Committee of 2 SC judges + 1 jurist.
• Passage needs total-membership majority + 2/3 present-and-voting majority in each House.
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lays down the detailed procedure.
• Only attempted case: Justice V. Ramaswami (1991–93) — motion failed.

Sources

• Constitution of India, Article 124(4) — https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — https://legislative.gov.in/
• Supreme Court of India, official website — https://www.sci.gov.in/

Further Reference

For deeper reading on this topic and the wider polity syllabus, these standard works are recommended:

• M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity (McGraw Hill) — the standard UPSC handbook.
• D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (LexisNexis) — authoritative constitutional-law treatment.
• The Constitution of India — Bare Act — the official text.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, UPSC.wiki earns from qualifying purchases — at no extra cost to you.