The Indian judiciary, often regarded as the guardian of the Constitution, operates on principles of independence, accountability, and integrity. While judges of various tiers of the judiciary are expected to uphold the highest standards of conduct, situations may arise where the removal of a judge becomes necessary. The recent developments involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, as highlighted in a Supreme Court collegium's summon over his controversial remarks, bring attention to the processes and safeguards associated with removing judges from their positions.
Constitutional Provisions for Removal of Judges
1. Supreme Court and High Court Judges
The process of removing judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts is governed by Article 124(4) and Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution, respectively.
- Grounds for Removal: Judges can only be removed on grounds of proven "misbehavior" or "incapacity." These terms encompass gross misconduct or inability to perform duties due to physical or mental incapacity.
- Procedure:
- Initiation: A motion must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members and submitted to the Speaker or Chairperson of the respective house.
- Inquiry Committee: If admitted, an inquiry committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court chief justice, and a distinguished jurist investigates the charges.
- Report: The committee submits a report to the house. If the charges are proven, the motion for removal is debated in Parliament.
- Parliamentary Approval: The motion requires a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in each house.
- Presidential Assent: If passed, the President issues an order for removal.
This rigorous process ensures that judicial independence is preserved, preventing arbitrary removal.
2. Lower Judiciary
Judges of the subordinate judiciary (district and magistrate courts) are governed by Article 235, which vests control over their conduct and removal with the High Courts.
- Grounds and Process:
- Subordinate judges can be removed for misconduct, inefficiency, or incapacity through departmental inquiries initiated by the High Court.
- The inquiry involves evidence gathering and providing the judge an opportunity to defend themselves.
- The final decision, subject to confirmation by the Governor of the state, is binding.
This decentralized control underscores the autonomy of the judiciary at different levels.
The Case of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
The Supreme Court's summoning of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav reflects the collegium's critical role in maintaining judicial discipline. While the Constitution provides for the removal of High Court judges, the collegium acts as a preliminary forum to address concerns over a judge's conduct before formal proceedings are initiated.
In this instance, Justice Yadav's remarks, which were perceived as inflammatory and against constitutional values, have raised questions about judicial impartiality. The collegium's intervention aims to preserve the dignity of the judiciary and ensure that judges act within their constitutional mandate.
Safeguards to Judicial Independence
The removal process is deliberately complex to protect judges from undue political or executive pressure. The following safeguards ensure a balance between accountability and independence:
- High Threshold for Parliamentary Approval: The two-thirds majority requirement prevents frivolous or politically motivated removals.
- Judicial Inquiry: The inclusion of judicial experts in the inquiry committee ensures impartiality in evaluating allegations.
- Collegium Oversight: The collegium's informal scrutiny, as seen in Justice Yadav's case, often resolves concerns without necessitating formal removal proceedings.
Challenges in the Removal Process
Despite its robust design, the process faces several challenges:
- Lengthy and Complex Procedures: The requirement for multiple levels of scrutiny makes the process time-consuming.
- Political Polarization: The parliamentary approval stage can become contentious, particularly when political interests are at stake.
- Lack of Transparency: While the judiciary aims to maintain its independence, the public often perceives the removal process as opaque due to limited access to inquiry details.
Reform and the Way Forward
To address these challenges, experts have suggested reforms such as:
- Codification of Misbehavior: Defining "misbehavior" more precisely to ensure consistent application.
- Strengthening Collegium Accountability: Enhancing transparency in collegium decisions related to judicial conduct.
- Speeding Up Inquiry Processes: Introducing timelines for inquiry committees to prevent undue delays.
Conclusion
The removal of a judge in India, whether at the apex court or lower judiciary, is a carefully designed process that balances judicial independence with accountability. The case of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav highlights the judiciary's internal mechanisms to address conduct issues while protecting the sanctity of the institution. As India continues to rely on its judiciary to uphold constitutional values, ensuring transparency and efficiency in the removal process will remain critical to maintaining public trust in this cornerstone of democracy.
For aspiring civil servants, understanding the Indian Constitution and judiciary is crucial for cracking the UPSC exam. At Shri Ram IAS, the best UPSC coaching in Delhi, we provide comprehensive guidance on topics like constitutional provisions, judicial processes, and governance. Join us to access expert faculty, detailed study material, and proven strategies for success. As one of the top IAS coaching institutes in Delhi, we are dedicated to your UPSC journey. Visit our UPSC coaching center in Delhi today and take the first step towards your IAS dreams!