Judge removal involves several steps. Here's how it proceeds
Once a judicial inquiry committee concludes in its report about wrongdoing by a constitutional court judge, the CJI, on being satisfied with the committee's finding, offers an opportunity to the judge concerned to resign.
If the judge refuses, then the CJI forwards the inquiry report to the President, who is the appointing authority, and the PM. The PM and the Union Cabinet, after discussing the report, may ask the law ministry/parliamentary affairs ministry to initiate a motion for removal.
A notice for motion of removal against the judge can be moved in Rajya Sabha if 50 or more MPs sign the motion, and in Lok Sabha if 100 or more MPs agree to put their signatures to it.
Once the motion is placed before the LS Speaker or RS chairman, in either case, he carries out a preliminary review of the report as well as the accompanying motion and has the power to 'admit or refuse to admit' the notice of motion for removal (Section 3 of Judges Inquiry Act, 1968).
In the event of admitting the notice of motion for removal, the head of the House concerned will keep the motion pending and constitute a three-member committee for 'the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for'.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
The committee will comprise either the CJI or a judge of the SC, an HC chief justice and a distinguished jurist. The committee will then frame charges against the judge concerned. 'Such charges, together with a statement of the grounds on which each such charge is based, shall be communicated to the judge and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting a written statement of defence within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the committee,' the Act provides.
Section 4 of the Act provides, 'The committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure in making the investigation and shall give a reasonable opportunity to the judge of cross-examining witnesses, adducing evidence and of being heard in his defence.' The committee, after conclusion of the investigation, will present a report to the head of the House concerned where the motion for removal is pending.
If the report finds the judge 'not guilty', then no further steps will be taken, and the motion will be treated as infructuous.
If the report finds the judge guilty, then the head of the House will lay the report before the House as soon as possible and the House will take up the motion for removal for debate.
The motion will then have to be passed by each House, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than twothirds of the members of the House present and voting.
It will then be presented to the President for removal of the judge. A notice for motion of removal against the judge can be moved in Rajya Sabha if 50 or more MPs sign the motion, and in Lok Sabha if 100 or more MPs agree to put their signatures to it
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Opposition protests on Parliament grounds over Bihar SIR
Parliament witnessed repeated disruptions on Tuesday as Opposition members staged protests in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, resulting in a complete washout of proceedings on the second day of the Monsoon session. The day began with the Rajya Sabha being adjourned shortly after it convened, amid protests over the SIR. Deputy Chairman Harivansh made a brief reference to the vacancy in the Vice President's office, citing constitutional provisions. When the House reconvened at noon, BJP MP Ghanshyam Tiwari informed members that the Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a notification regarding Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation. In the Lok Sabha, Opposition MPs carrying placards entered the Well of the House around 11 a.m., raising slogans and demanding a rollback of the SIR. Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan urged members to allow the Question Hour, but Speaker Om Birla adjourned the House till noon. Further adjournments followed at 2 p.m. and again for the day as the protests continued. The Rajya Sabha also saw two adjournments before being adjourned for the day without conducting any business. On Monday, the Monsoon session began on a stormy note as the opposition forced repeated adjournments in the Lok Sabha, demanding an immediate discussion on Operation Sindoor and other issues, while the Rajya Sabha set in motion the process for Justice Yashwant Varma's removal over burnt wads of cash found at his residence here.
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Kanwar Yatra: Display licenses - SC refuses to stay QR code directives to eateries
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to stay the 'QR' code directive for eateries along Kanwar Yatra route in UP, Uttarakhand and directed all hotel owners along the route to display their licences and registration certificates in line with the statutory requirements. A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh said it was not going into the other issues over display of names of the hotel or dhaba owner and the QR code, Tuesday being the last day of the Kanwar Yatra. 'We are told that today is the last day of the yatra. In any case it is likely to come to an end in the near future. Therefore, at this stage we would only pass an order that all the respective hotel owners shall comply with the mandate of displaying the licence and the registration certificate as per the statutory requirements,' the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea filed by academician Apoorvanand Jha and others. Senior advocate Abhishek M Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the UP government should have sought the modification of the court's 2024 order before issuing the QR code directives. Singhvi argued the state government was trying to ostracise and exclude minorities by its QR code directive for eateries along the Kanwar Yatra route. 'This is the most divisive initiative, to ostracise people during the yatra, as if these people are untouchables. Will my surname ensure that 'kanwariyas' receive good quality food not menu card? This is the most divisive initiative possible,' the senior lawyer submitted. Referring to news reports over the alleged attacks on certain shops by kanwariyas, the senior lawyer said, 'When you sow the seeds of divisiveness, the rest is taken care of by the populace.' Responding to his submission, Justice Sundresh said people had different food choices and a vegetarian may choose to go to only a place serving exclusively vegetarian food, especially during a religious pilgrimage. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said directions were issued in line with the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India regulations. 'There are people in this country who will not eat in there brother's house if meat is cooked. There are sentiments of devotees,' Rohatgi said, 'and as per the regulations under the Act they require photo identity. Why are you scared of showing your name? I don't understand.' Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing other petitioners, said the eateries along this route only sold vegetarian items during this period according to local regulations. Justice Sundresh observed a customer must have the choice of knowing if a place was exclusively selling vegetarian items throughout. 'If a hotel is running as a vegetarian hotel all through, then the question of indicating names and other things will not arise. But if only for the purpose of yatra, somebody stops serving non-vegetarian and starts selling vegetarian, the consumer should know,' the judge remarked.
