Removal of judges

Also called: Article 124(4), Article 217(1)(b), Impeachment of judges · Topic: Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 5 "Legislature"; Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

Removal of judges is the process by which a Supreme Court or High Court judge can be sent out of office. It is allowed only for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity". The President orders the removal after each House of Parliament, in the same session, passes an address by a special majority. The charge must first be proved in an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968.

It matters because the process protects judicial independence, so a judge cannot be sacked for a judgment the government dislikes. It is also Parliament's main way to hold judges to account. The bar is so high that no judge has ever been removed since 1950.

Explanation

Why the process is made hard

• Judicial independence means judges can decide cases without fear of the government or Parliament. A judge who could be sacked easily would not be independent.
• Security of tenure means a judge stays in office until retirement and cannot be removed for an unpopular judgment.
• NCERT balance (Class 11, Judiciary):
• The executive appoints judges.
• The legislature removes them.

• So no single organ controls a judge from start to finish.

• Checks and balances: removal is Parliament's check on the courts. The high bar stops Parliament from misusing it.

Grounds and the special majority

• Only two grounds, both "proved":
• Misbehaviour is wrongful conduct, such as corruption or misuse of office.
• Incapacity means the judge cannot do the job, for example because of serious physical or mental illness.

• "Proved" means the charge must first be proved in an inquiry. A vote alone is not enough.

• Special majority: in each House, the address must win both of these: 1. a majority of the total membership of the House; and 2. two-thirds of members present and voting.

• Same session: both Houses must pass the address in the same session.

• Resignation: a judge may resign at any time by writing to the President (proviso to Art. 124(2)). Several judges have resigned before a removal vote.

Steps under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968

Step	What happens	What is needed
1. Notice	A notice of motion for removal is given	Signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members (to the Speaker) or 50 Rajya Sabha members (to the Chairman) [3][4]
2. Admission	The presiding officer studies the notice and admits or refuses it	Speaker / Chairman decides alone. A refusal ends the matter [3]
3. Committee	A three-member inquiry committee is set up	A Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist [3][4]
4. Inquiry	The committee frames charges. The judge gives a written reply, can cross-examine witnesses and can be heard	The committee then reports to the presiding officer [4]
5. Finding	"Not guilty" → motion dropped. "Guilty" → report and motion go to the House	The committee's finding binds this stage
6. Vote	Each House debates and votes in the same session	Majority of total membership + two-thirds of present and voting, in each House [3][4]
7. Removal	The address goes to the President	The President orders removal [3]

• Joint committee rule:
• If notices are given in both Houses on the same day, no committee is formed until both notices are admitted.

• The Speaker and Chairman then form a joint committee together.

• Built-in shield:

• A committee's "not guilty" finding ends the case.
• Parliament cannot vote to remove a judge whom the committee has cleared.
• So purely political removal is blocked.

In the Constitution and practice

• Article 124(4): a Supreme Court judge can be removed only by an order of the President, after an address by each House passed by the special majority, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Article 124(5): Parliament may make a law for the procedure, meaning how the address is presented and how the charge is investigated and proved.
• Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968: Act No. 51 of 1968, dated 5 December 1968, made under Art. 124(5) [5]. The Judges (Inquiry) Rules 1969 add the finer details.
• High Courts:
• Art. 217(1)(b): the President can remove a High Court judge in the manner set out in Art. 124(4).
• Art. 218: Art. 124(4) and (5) also apply to High Courts.

• So the grounds, majority and procedure are the same for both courts.

• Word "impeachment": the Constitution uses this word only for removing the President (Art. 61). For judges, the media often says "impeachment", but the legal term is removal [4].

Key instances (no judge removed so far):

• Justice V. Ramaswami (1991–93): the first removal motion.
• 1991: 108 MPs signed the notice. The charges related to his time as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• 1992: the Justice P.B. Sawant committee found him guilty of "wilful and gross misuse of office".

• May 1993: in the Lok Sabha, the motion won two-thirds of those present and voting, but it failed the total-membership test because the Congress abstained (stayed away from the vote). He stayed in office.

• Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court, August 2011): the Rajya Sabha passed the motion. He resigned before the Lok Sabha vote.

• Justice P.D. Dinakaran (Chief Justice, Sikkim High Court, 2011): he resigned during the inquiry.
• CJI Dipak Misra (April 2018): the Rajya Sabha Chairman refused the notice at the admission stage.
• Justice Yashwant Varma (2025–26): 1. March 2025: burnt currency was found at his official residence while he was a Delhi High Court judge. He was moved back to the Allahabad High Court. 2. 22 March 2025: CJI Sanjiv Khanna set up an in-house committee of Justices Sheel Nagu, G.S. Sandhawalia and Anu Sivaraman [6]. 3. May 2025: the committee found against him. The CJI sent the report to the President and Prime Minister, recommending removal [7]. 4. 7 August 2025: the Supreme Court rejected his challenge to the in-house procedure [8]. 5. 12 August 2025: the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion and formed a committee under the 1968 Act: Justice Aravind Kumar (Supreme Court), Justice Shree Chandrashekhar (Chief Justice, Bombay High Court) and B.V. Acharya (Senior Advocate) [2]. 6. 18 May 2026: the committee gave its report to Speaker Om Birla. The report is to be laid before both Houses [2]. 7. As of the latest official release, neither House has decided the matter (check for later updates).
• Why it matters: this is the first case where an in-house finding led into the statutory route under the 1968 Act.

Don't confuse with

• Impeachment of the President (Art. 61): this is the only process the Constitution calls "impeachment", and its ground is violation of the Constitution. Judges are "removed" under Art. 124(4), only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• In-house procedure (1999, made public 2014): this is the judiciary's own system and has no statutory basis (no law behind it). It can only advise a judge to resign or withdraw judicial work. It cannot remove a judge. Only Parliament and the President can.
• Special majority under Art. 124(4) vs "two-thirds of total membership": the rule is a majority of total membership AND two-thirds of present and voting. It is not two-thirds of the total strength.
• Committee finding vs parliamentary vote: a "not guilty" finding ends the case for good. A "guilty" finding does not remove the judge on its own. The case still needs the special majority in both Houses, as the Ramaswami case (1993) showed.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 124(4) → Supreme Court judge removed only for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity", by President's order, after an address by each House in the same session. Art. 217(1)(b) and Art. 218 → the same rule for High Court judges.
• Art. 124(5) → Parliament regulates the procedure → Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968) [5] and Rules 1969.
• Notice: 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members. The Speaker/Chairman may refuse it at admission [3][4].
• Inquiry committee: SC judge + HC Chief Justice + distinguished jurist [3][4]. Notices in both Houses on the same day → joint committee.
• V. Ramaswami (1993): first removal motion. The Sawant committee found him guilty, but the motion failed in the Lok Sabha because of Congress abstention. Soumitra Sen (2011): the only judge against whom one House (Rajya Sabha) passed a removal motion. He resigned before the Lok Sabha vote.
• Trap: the Constitution never uses the word "impeachment" for judges. It uses it only for the President (Art. 61).

Mains Points

• Independence vs accountability:
• The high bar (special majority plus a proved charge) protects judges from political revenge.
• But there has been no removal in over 75 years, which suggests the bar may be too high to deal with real misconduct.

• Reform: a law setting out graded penalties (censure, withdrawal of work) could fill the gap between doing nothing and removal. The lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010 proposed binding standards and a complaint system [9].

• Politicisation of the process:

• Party abstention (Ramaswami, 1993) overrode a committee's guilty finding.
• An admission-stage refusal (Dipak Misra notice, 2018) showed how much power the presiding officer holds as gatekeeper.

• Reform: give the committee's "guilty" finding more weight, and set clear, reviewable standards for admitting notices.

• In-house procedure and separation of powers:

• The in-house procedure allows quick internal action (Varma case, 2025). But it is opaque, has no law behind it and cannot remove a judge.
• Since the collegium (1993) and the striking down of the NJAC (2015), judges largely choose judges. This makes a credible, non-partisan discipline system more important.
• Reform: give the in-house procedure a statutory basis, with fixed timelines and published findings, to improve public trust.

Related concepts

• Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968
• Justice V. Ramaswami removal motion
• In-house procedure

Read more

• Removing judges: Article 124(4), the Judges (Inquiry) Act and in-house discipline