Introduction
In India, judges are seen as the ultimate guardians of justice — the ones who ensure that law stands above power. But what happens when the guardian himself is accused of misconduct?
That’s where the concept of judicial impeachment comes in — a rare and sensitive process that keeps the judiciary accountable while protecting its independence.
The impeachment of judges isn’t just a constitutional mechanism; it’s a reflection of our democratic checks and balances. Although India has seen only a few attempts at removing judges, each one has sparked national debate about integrity, ethics, and transparency in the judicial system.
Meaning of Judicial Impeachment
Impeachment simply means removing a judge from office before their term ends, but only for proven misbehavior or incapacity. It’s not like firing a government employee — it’s a constitutional procedure meant to safeguard both judicial independence and public accountability.
Judges hold office under the protection of the Constitution, and can’t be removed by the executive or legislature alone. Their removal requires parliamentary action, ensuring no political misuse of power
Constitutional Framework
Supreme Court Judges — Article 124(4) & (5)
- Article 124(4) provides that a Supreme Court judge “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 that House present and voting.”
- Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to enact a law to regulate how allegations (misbehavior or incapacity) are to be investigated.
Thus, removal is not purely the President’s decision, but dependent on Parliament following a constitutionally mandated procedure.
High Court Judges — Article 217(1)(b) and Article 218
- Article 217(1)(b) states that a High Court judge may be removed by the President on the same grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity,” following the parliamentary process.
- Article 218 essentially ensures that (save for the inquiry procedure) the process for removal of High Court judges mirrors that of Supreme Court judges.
In short: both Supreme Court and High Court judges can be removed only by a presidential order, but after a successful parliamentary address grounded in a statutory inquiry.
Key points are :
- Article 124(4): Deals with the removal of a Supreme Court judge.
- Article 217(1)(b): Applies the same principle to High Court judges.
- Parliament’s approval with a special majority, and
- Proof of misconduct or incapacity, not mere allegations.
Statutory Procedure: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Because Article 124(5) allows Parliament to frame rules, Parliament passed the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This statute fleshes out how to go from an allegation to removal
1. Initiation (Notice of Motion)
- A motion for removal can start in either House of Parliament.
- It must be signed by at least 100 members in Lok Sabha, or 50 members in Rajya Sabha.
- The Speaker (in Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (in Rajya Sabha) scrutinises the notice. He or she may admit it or refuse it (after consulting other persons or materials). If refused, no further steps.
2. Constitution of Inquiry Committee
If the motion is admitted, the Presiding Officer constitutes a three-member Inquiry Committee under Section 3(2) of the JIA, 1968. This committee holds quasi-judicial powers and acts as the fact-finder. The composition is strictly defined:
- A Chief Justice or a judge of the Supreme Court.
- A Chief Justice of a High Court.
- A distinguished jurist.
The Committee frames the charges, gives the judge a reasonable opportunity to be heard (including legal representation), and conducts a thorough investigatio
3. Report & Parliamentary Consideration
- After investigation, the committee submits its report to the Speaker or Chairman
- If the report finds the judge not guilty, the motion is dropped.
- If the report finds the judge guilty (misbehaviour or incapacity), then the motion plus the report is taken up for debate in each House where it is pending.
- To succeed, each House must pass the motion by:
– a majority of the total membership of that House; and
– at least two-thirds of the members present and voting. - If passed in both Houses in the same session, an address is presented to the President to remove the judge.
4. Presidential Order
Once both Houses adopt the address, the President issues an order removing the judge.
Case laws
Although India’s Constitution allows impeachment, it’s been used very rarely, no judge in India has ever been successfully removed through the parliamentary process. However, the mechanism has been initiated several times, setting crucial precedents.
Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) –
The first judge against whom impeachment was attempted.
- He was accused of financial irregularities while serving as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- The motion failed in the Lok Sabha because the ruling party abstained from voting, even though the evidence was strong.
Justice Soumitra Sen (2011) – Calcutta High Court judge.
- Found guilty of misappropriation of funds.
- The Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion, but he resigned before the Lok Sabha could vote.
Justice P.D. Dinakaran –
Allegations of land-grabbing and corruption. He resigned before the inquiry could conclude, thus avoiding impeachment.
Justice S. K. Gangele:
Faced a motion over sexual harassment charges circa 2015; the inquiry committee cleared him.
Justice Yashwant Varma (2025 cash row):
in early 2025, large sums of burnt/half-burnt currency were found at his residence. A Supreme Court–constituted three-member panel has reportedly recommended removal for serious misconduct.
Conclusion:
The impeachment route is rare because the Constitution protects judges from political pressure — but that protection does not create impunity. The Justice Yashwant Varma episode is a living example of how the system responds when serious allegations arise: investigative steps, institutional checks, and procedural complexity. For future lawyers, the lesson is clear — safeguard judicial independence, but insist on transparent, fair processes that maintain public confidence in justice.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
