Understanding the Impeachment Process of Judges in India: UPSC Notes

The independence of the judiciary is one of the key pillars of India's democracy. Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy constitutional protection to ensure they can perform their duties without external pressure. At the same time, the Constitution also provides a mechanism to hold judges accountable in cases of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

The impeachment process of judges in India is a rare and carefully structured constitutional procedure. It involves multiple stages and requires the approval of Parliament through a special majority, ensuring that judges cannot be removed arbitrarily. 

Here, we will explain the impeachment process of judges in India, the constitutional provisions, the step-by-step procedure, important cases, and recent developments from the UPSC Mains exam perspective.

Impeachment is the constitutional process through which judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts can be removed from office for proven misconduct or incapacity. 

• The Constitution of India does not explicitly use the term "impeachment" in relation to judges. It is commonly used to describe the formal removal procedure outlined in Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges and Article 218 for High Court judges.
• The term impeachment, as officially used in the Constitution, applies exclusively to the removal of the President under Article 61 through a parliamentary process.

Article 124(4) states that a judge of the Supreme Court "shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting".

Article 218 extends these provisions to High Court judges, ensuring uniform removal procedures across the higher judiciary, and Article 217(1)(b) provides Additional provisions for High Court judge removal.

Grounds for Removal

Judges can only be removed on two specific grounds:

• Proved Misbehaviour: Actions or conduct that violate ethical and professional standards of the judiciary, including corruption, misuse of office, violation of judicial ethics, or conduct undermining judicial dignity.
• Incapacity: A judge's inability to perform judicial duties due to physical or mental infirmity.

Legislative Framework

• The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, provides the detailed procedure for investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity of judges.
• This Act was formulated under Article 124(5) and prescribes the complete process for removal proceedings.

Let’s understand the process of judicial impeachment in India.

Step 1: Initiation of Motion

The impeachment process can be initiated in either house of Parliament with specific signature requirements:

• Lok Sabha: Minimum 100 MPs must sign the motion
• Rajya Sabha: Minimum 50 MPs must sign the motion

The motion is then submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, respectively.

Step 2: Admission of Motion

• The Speaker or Chairman has discretionary power to either admit or reject the motion after due consideration and consultation.
• There is no time limit for this decision, and they may examine relevant materials related to the notice.
• Recent Examples: Justice Dipak Mishra's motion (2018) was rejected by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, and Justice Yashwant Varma's motion (2025) was admitted by the Lok Sabha Speaker.

Step 3: Constitution of Inquiry Committee

If the motion is admitted, a three-member committee must be constituted immediately, comprising:

• Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge (Chairperson)
• Chief Justice of a High Court
• Distinguished jurist (as determined by the Speaker/Chairman)

Step 4: Investigation Process

The inquiry committee conducts a thorough investigation with the following powers:

• Frame specific charges against the judge.
• Examine evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
• Provide the judge with a copy of the charges and an opportunity for a written defence.
• Grant the judge the right to examine witnesses and present their case.
• Submit findings to the Speaker/Chairman within a stipulated timeframe.

Step 5: Parliamentary Consideration

If the committee finds the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity:

• The originating house takes up the motion for debate.
• The judge or representative has the right to present their case.
• The motion requires a special majority for passage.

Step 6: Voting Requirements

For successful removal, the motion must pass in both houses with:

• Two-thirds majority of members present and voting
• More than 50% of the total membership of each house
• Same parliamentary session for both houses' approvals

Lok Sabha: 273 members (majority of 545) + 2/3rd of present members.
Rajya Sabha: 123 members (majority of 245) + 2/3rd of present members.

Step 7: Presidential Order

If both houses pass the motion with the required majority, an address is presented to the President, who then issues an order for the removal of the judge.

Important: No judge in India has been impeached since independence. The strict voting thresholds, along with political negotiations and shifting alliances, make the process rare and difficult to complete.

India’s judicial history has witnessed only a few major impeachment proceedings against higher judiciary members, highlighting the nation’s accountability mechanisms. None has led to a judge’s removal from office.

1. Justice V. Ramaswami (1993)

• Justice V. Ramaswami became the first sitting Supreme Court judge to face impeachment proceedings.
• He was accused of financial irregularities during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. Justice Soumitra Sen (2011)

• Justice Soumitra Sen, against whom the parliamentary house passed an impeachment motion.
• He was accused of unfairly taking Rs 33.23 lakh as a court-appointed receiver and misrepresenting facts.

3. Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy (2017)

• 61 Rajya Sabha MPs sought the impeachment of the Andhra Pradesh/Telangana High Court judge for alleged misconduct and mistreatment of a Dalit judge.
• The motion failed twice after several signatories withdrew their support.

The impeachment process for judges in India is designed to uphold judicial independence, but its structure also creates notable limitations that hinder effectiveness and accountability.

1. Extremely High Threshold

• The two-thirds majority requirement in both Houses, combined with an absolute majority of total membership, creates a formidable barrier.
• This dual requirement makes successful impeachment extremely difficult, even when misconduct is established.

2. Political Considerations Override Merit

• The Justice V. Ramaswami case demonstrated how party politics can prevent removal even when an inquiry committee finds guilt.
• The Congress party's mass abstention showed that political calculations often trump judicial accountability.

3. Limited Scope of Review

The process only addresses "proved misbehaviour" and "incapacity" but doesn't cover:

• Poor judicial performance
• Delays in judgment delivery
• Administrative inefficiency
• Ethical lapses not amounting to misconduct

4. Resignation as an Escape Route

Three out of five major impeachment attempts ended with judges resigning before completion of proceedings, allowing them to:

• Retain post-retirement benefits
• Avoid formal censure
• Escape accountability

5. Limited Public Participation 

Citizens have a minimal role in judicial accountability:

• No direct complaint mechanism.
• Dependence on MPs for motion initiation.
• Lack of public interest representation.

Also read: Understanding the Implications of India's Uniform Civil Code

The impeachment process of judges in India reflects the balance between judicial independence and constitutional accountability. Although it is rarely invoked, understanding its constitutional provisions, procedure, and landmark cases is essential for UPSC aspirants. A clear grasp of this topic not only strengthens Polity preparation but also helps in analysing contemporary debates on judicial accountability and constitutional governance.