Judicial accountability must not come at the cost of fair process. Discuss with reference to recent removal motions.

The Constitution permits removal of a judge only for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" under Article 124(4), extended to High Court judges by Article 218 [3]. The word "proved" is decisive: accountability is secured through proof and procedure, not through political verdict, making fair process the very condition of legitimate accountability.

Accountability is a genuine constitutional demand

• Judges enjoy security of tenure but not immunity; the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 exists precisely to investigate and prove misconduct [2].
• The 2025 motion against Justice Yashwant Varma, following recovery of cash at his official residence, was signed by 145 Lok Sabha members across party lines and submitted on 21 July 2025, with a parallel Rajya Sabha notice [4].
• Cross-party support signals that shielding the judiciary from scrutiny erodes, rather than protects, public confidence.

Fair process is built into the design, not opposed to it

• The Presiding Officer's power to admit or refuse a notice is the first filter against frivolous or motivated motions [1].
• Only after admission is a three-member committee — a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist — constituted, and the judge receives the charges and may file a written defence [1][2].
• The special majority required in both Houses, followed by the President's order, deliberately raises the threshold so that a transient majority cannot unseat a judge [1].

The record shows twin risks

• No judge of the higher judiciary has ever been removed through the completed process; in the Soumitra Sen case (2011), the Lok Sabha did not proceed after his resignation [5].
• Thus the mechanism risks appearing ineffective, while a politically charged motion risks becoming a predetermined trial — accountability without fairness.

Judicial accountability and fair process are therefore complementary, not competing, values. Strengthening the inquiry stage, ensuring time-bound and evidence-led proceedings, and insulating admission decisions from partisan calculation would make removal both credible and just — upholding the independence of the judiciary that the Constitution treats as part of its basic structure.