ARTICLE ON IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES

 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS (Article 124(4), (5) & Article 217)

The Constitution of India contains certain provisions for removal of a Judge from his office and
regulation of the procedures thereof. The Constitution provides that a Judge of the Supreme
Court or of a High Court may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his
office, but he cannot be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after
an address by each House of Parliament in the prescribed manner.

Article 124(4) states:

“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
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 has been presented to the
President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or
incapacity.”

It can thus be inferred from this provision that the Constitution enjoins the following pre-
conditions for the removal of Judge of the Supreme Court:

(i) a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be removed only by an order of the President;

(ii) it should be after presentation of an Address by each House of Parliament;

(iii) the Address should be 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;

(iv) the Address should be presented to the President in the same session; and
 (v) removal has to be on the grounds of “proved” misbehavior or incapacity.

Further Article 124(5) states:

“The Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for
the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4)”

 THE JUDGES (INQUIRY) ACT, 1968:

The Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 1964 was formulated, laying down the procedure as contemplated by
article 124(5) of the Constitution which gives the Parliament the power to regulate the procedure
for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or
incapacity of a Judge.

The Bill was referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses. After elaborate discussion before
the Committee, in which eminent Members of Parliament and the then Attorney General and
former Attorney General gave their evidence, the Joint Committee gave its report on 13 May
1966. The recommendations of the Committee were taken into account and The Judges (Inquiry)
Act, 1968 was passed prescribing the procedure for the investigation and proof of misbehavior
and incapacity of Judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India, the Chief
Justices and Judges of the High Courts.

Procedure laid down in the Act:

Under the procedure laid down in section 3 of the Act, a notice of a motion for presenting an
Address to the President praying for the removal of a Judge,

a) If given in Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Indian Parliament), is to be signed by not
less than fifty members of the House and,
b) If given in Lok Sabha (Lower House), by not less than one hundred members of that
House.
The Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, after due consideration of such material as
may be available to him, and consulting such persons as he may think fit, may admit or refuse
to admit the motion.

Consequent on the admittance of the motion, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,
shall keep the motion pending and constitute a Committee of three members for the purpose of
making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a Judge is prayed for.

A committee consist of three members of who one each from

(i) the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court;
(ii) Chief Justices of the High Courts; and
(iii) Distinguished jurists in the opinion of the speaker or, the Chairman, as the case must
be.,

In case the notices of motion are given on the same day in both the Houses, the Committee will
be constituted only if the motion has been admitted in both the Houses and thereupon jointly
by the Chairman and the Speaker.

In case notices of motion are given in both the Houses on different dates, the notice which is
given later shall stand rejected.

The Committee will frame definite charges against the Judge on the basis of which investigation
is proposed to be held. Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on which each
such charge is based shall be communicated to the Judge and he shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of presenting a written statement of defense within such time as may be specified
in this behalf by the Committee.

In case of Physical or Mental Incapacity:

In a case of alleged physical or mental incapacity and where such an allegation is denied, the
Committee may arrange for the medical examination of the Judge by such Medical Board as
may be appointed for the purpose by the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman or, where
the Committee is constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, by both of them, for the
purpose and the Judge shall submit himself to such medical examination within the time
specified in this behalf by the Committee.

The Medical Board shall undertake such medical examination of the Judge as may be considered
necessary and submit a report to the Committee stating therein whether the incapacity is such
as to render the Judge unfit to continue in office.

If the Judge refuses to undergo medical examination considered necessary by the Medical Board,
the Board shall submit a report to the Committee stating therein the examination which the
Judge has refused to undergo, and the Committee may, on receipt of such report, presume that
the Judge suffers from such physical or mental incapacity.

Report of the Committee:

The Committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure in making the investigation and
shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Judge of cross-examining witnesses, adducing
evidence and of being heard in his defense.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Committee will submit its report to the Chairman or,
to the Speaker, stating therein its findings on each of the charges separately with such
observations on the whole case as it thinks fit. The report will as soon as possible, thereafter, be
laid before the respective House or the Houses, if the Committee has been appointed jointly by
the Chairman or the Speaker.

If the Committee absolves the Judge of any misbehavior or incapacity, the motion pending in
the respective House or Houses, will not be proceeded with.
If the report of the Committee contains a finding that the Judge is guilty of any misbehavior or
suffers from any incapacity, the motion will, together with the report of the Committee, be taken
up for consideration by the House or the Houses in which it is pending.

In the event of the adoption of the motion in accordance with the constitutional provisions, the
misbehavior or incapacity of the Judge will be deemed to have been proved and an Address
praying for the removal of the Judge will be presented in the prescribed manner by each House
of Parliament in the same Session in which the motion has been adopted.

 CASES OF IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGES:

 JUSTICE V. RAMASWAMI

The first-ever impeachment motion against a SC judge, Justice V. Ramaswami, was

signed by 108 MPs in 1991. A year later, an inquiry found Ramaswami “guilty of willful
and gross misuses of office… “While serving as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court”.

The House resolves that an address be presented to the president for the removal from
the office of Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India for his following acts
of misbehavior:

1) That during his tenure as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court between
November 1987 and October 1989, Justice Ramaswami personally got carpets and
furniture for his residence and for the High Court costing about Rs 50 Lakhs from
public –funds from handpicked dealers at inflated rates. This was done without
inviting public tenders and by privately obtaining a few quotations, most of which
were forged or bogus.
2) That he also got payments made to hand-picked dealers for furniture and carpets
ostensibly purchased for his residence which were never delivered.
3) That he misappropriated some of the furniture, carpets, and some other items
purchased from the court’s funds for his official residence costing more than Rs
1,50,000 and did not account for the same at all.
4) That he replaced several items of furniture, carpets and suitcases, etc. of a value of
more than Rs.30,000 which has been purchased by him for his official residence from
the court funds, by old and inferior quality items, with the object of deriving undue
benefit for himself.
5) That he purchased from the public fund, more than Rs.13 lakhs worth furniture and
other associated items for his official residence at Chandigarh even though he was
entitled to furniture worth Rs 38,000 only. That in the process, he willfully evaded
several rules and sanctioned money for such purchases by splitting up bills.
6) That he got purchased 25 silver maces for the High Court at a cost of Rs 3,60,000 from
a firm at his home town in Madras at highly inflated prices without inviting
competitive quotations. This was done even after the other judges of the High Court
had opposed the purchase of these maces on the ground that they were wholly
unnecessary and appeared to be a relic of colonial past.
7) That he misused public funds to the extent of Rs 9.10 lakhs by making the court pay
for non-official calls made on his residential telephones at Chandigarh during his 22
months in office as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
8) That he abused his authority as Chief Justice to make the P&H High Court pay Rs
76,150 for even his residential phone at Madras.
9) That he misused his staff cars provided to him by taking them from Chandigarh to
hill stations for vacations and to Madras for his son’s wedding and spent more than
Rs 1 lakh of public money for paying for the petrol of these cars. He even got himself
paid for false petrol bills relating to car repairs, etc.
10) That he sanctioned an official the pleasure trip or trips made for his own personal
work by his subordinate staff to places like Madras, Mussorie, Manali, etc, even
though there was no official work to be done in those places.
 11) That he gave four unjustified promotions each within 18 months to several members
of subordinate staff of the high Court whom he misused for aiding and abetting his
above acts done for his personal gain.

Ramaswami survived the impeachment process as Parliament got divided along regional
lines, southern MPs strongly supported him. Only 196 members of Parliament, less than
the required two-thirds, voted for his ouster. All those who voted for impeachment were
from the Opposition, while the Congress adopted the strategy of abstaining. Ramaswami
was a Congress appointed judge and his removal could have undermined the party's
credibility. Besides, that his son was a Congress MLA in Tamil Nadu.

 JUSTICE SOUMITRA SEN:

On August 18, 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen become the first judge (Calcutta High Court) to be
impeached by Rajya Sabha. He was accused of misappropriating large sums of money which he
received as a receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court. He was also accused of
misrepresenting facts in this regard to the High Court.

The charge of misappropriation and conclusion of inquiry committee:

Justice Soumitra Sen did not seek any permission from the Court for approval of the dealings,
as required by the Court, nor did he account for the funds.

Justice Soumitra Sen was appointed Receiver in a case, where certain money belonging to SAIL
was stuck in a 1983 dispute, by an order of the Calcutta High Court on April 30, 1984. As a
Receiver, Justice Sen had the power to collect outstanding debts and claims due in respect of
certain goods.

The Receiver is required to file and submit for passing, his half yearly accounts in the Office of
the Registrar of the High Court. However, Justice Sen did not comply with this rule. As a
Receiver, Justice Sen was required to open only one account and not move funds without prior
permission.
However, the Inquiry Committee found that two separate accounts were opened by Justice
Soumitra Sen as Receiver, with ANZ Grindlays Bank and Allahabad Bank. A total sum of over
Rs 33 lakh was transferred in these accounts from the sale of the goods which was unaccounted
for.

Justice Sen claimed he could not account for this amount since it was invested in a company
called Lynx India Ltd. to earn interest. The Inquiry Committee found this claim to be false as
well. It was found that the amount transferred to Lynx India Ltd. had been made out of an
account opened by Justice Sen in his own name.

The Committee concluded that

(a) there was a large-scale diversion of fund, and

(b) such diversion was in violation of the orders of the High Court.

. As per the Judges Inquiry Act, the motion was moved in the Rajya Sabha and debated upon.
Sen was given an opportunity to defend himself through his counsel. Subash Bhattacharya the
lawyer of Justice Soumitra Sen said that his client is innocent and he will prove he is innocent
On 18 August 2011, Rajya Sabha passed the impeachment motion by overwhelming majority of
189 votes in favour and 17 against.

Ahead of the impeachment motion against him in the Lok Sabha on 5 & 6 September 2011, he
resigned on 1 September 2011. In his resignation letter he said that, "Since the Rajya Sabha has
decided in its wisdom that he should not continue as a judge, he has decided not to go to the
Lok Sabha, and put in his papers instead." Later, Lok Sabha decided to drop the impeachment
proceedings against him because he had resigned and further stated that, the Lok Sabha will
consult Attorney General in this matter.

On 15 Jan 2012, it became public through an RTI query that Justice Sen will keep getting his post-
retirement benefits, even though they resigned ahead of impeachment proceedings against
them, as there are no Constitutional or statutory provisions restricting the entitlements in such
a scenario.
  JUSTICE P.D DINAKARAN

The Supreme Court collegium had recommended in August 2009, Justice P.D. Dinakaran, the
Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, for elevation to the Supreme Court. The
recommendations came along with the names of four other Judges for elevation to the Apex
court namely, Justice AK Patnayak (Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court), Justice
Tirath Singh Thakur, (Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice SS Nijjar (Chief
Justice of Calcutta High Court) and Justice KS Radhakrishna (Chief Justice of Gujarat High
Court).

Immediately after the news of Justice Dinakaran’s proposed appointment became known, a
group of highly respected and responsible lawyers from Chennai called the Forum for Judicial
Accountability sent a series of representations to the Collegium and the government detailing
several very damaging allegations against him. These included, acquiring more than 350 acres
of agricultural land and encroaching on another more than hundred acres of public land;
acquiring properties benami and far beyond his known sources of income; hearing and
deciding cases of his friends etc. All the allegations were backed by documentary evidence.

Though the Chief Justice of India, continued to back him, he ordered an inquiry into the
allegation regarding his agricultural land by the District Magistrate, who confirmed the
allegations including his encroachment of public land. Thereafter Justice Dinakaran tried to
destroy evidence and threatened the revenue officials who went to stop this destruction of
evidence. All this came to be widely reported in the media.

Thereafter, Supreme Court collegium headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had decided
to replace Justice Dinakaran with Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice JS Khehar and
recommended transfer of Dinakaran to the Sikkim High Court.

Meanwhile, the public demand that FIRs should be registered and the offences that he had
committed be investigated. The Chief Justice of India however did not give permission for
registering any FIR against Justice Dinakaran. This left no option but to initiate impeachment
proceedings against him.

The Forum for Judicial Accountability prepared the impeachment motion which was sent to
all the political parties by a campaign for signatures. Eventually 75 MPs of the Rajya Sabha,
belonging to many political parties signed the impeachment motion and presented it to the
Vice President. The motion was soon admitted by the Vice President forcing Justice Dinakaran
to stop discharging judicial functions.
The charge of misappropriation and misbehavior against Justice P.D Dinakaran were:

1. Possessing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income.

2. Unlawfully securing five Housing Board plots, in favour of his wife and two
daughters.

3. Entering into Benami transactions prohibited and punishable under the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

4. Acquiring and possessing agricultural holdings beyond ceiling limit under the Tamil
Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

5. Illegal encroachment on Government and public property to deprive dalits and the
poor of their right to livelihood.

6. Violation of the human rights of dalits and the poor.

7. Destruction of evidence during official enquiry.

8. Obstructing public servant on duty.

9. Repeated undervaluation of properties at the time of registration of sale to evade

stamp duty.

10. Carrying out illegal construction in breach of Town Planning Law and planning
permit.

11. Misuse of official position to unlawfully secure property and to facilitate other
illegal acts for personal gain.
 12. Abuse of judicial office:

A) To pass dishonest judicial orders:

 Contrary to settled principles of law to favour a few individuals or for his own unjust
enrichment, at the cost of the public exchequer and the country’s natural resources.

 In matters where he had personal and direct pecuniary interest to secure several properties
for his family.

B) To take irregular and dishonest administrative actions:

 For constituting Benches and fixing Rosters of judges to facilitate dishonest judicial
decisions.

 To make arbitrary and illegal appointments and transfers.

Facing impeachment on charges of corruption and judicial misconduct, Justice P.D. Dinakaran
resigned by sending his resignation letter to President Pratibha Patil, with a copy to Chief
Justice of India S.H. Kapadia. (Under Article 217 (a) of the Constitution, a Judge of the High
Court “may by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office.”) from the
post of Sikkim high court Chief Justice on 29 July 2011 prior to the commencement of the
removal proceedings by the three- member panel.

As a result of his resignation, the removal proceedings initiated under the Judges Inquiry Act
pursuant to a motion admitted in the Rajya Sabha will become infructuous.

 JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

In 2015, a group of 58 Rajya Sabha MPs moved an impeachment notice against Justice
J.B. Pardiwala of the Gujarat High Court for his “objectionable remarks on the issue of
reservation.”
The MPs, in their petition, said Justice Pardiwala’s comments on reservation for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while giving a ruling in a case against Patidar
leader Hardik Patel (case of violent agitation demanding reservation benefits to the
Patel community), were objectionable. The specific objection seemed to be connected to
the observations made by the judge in paragraph 62 of the judgment.

“If I am asked by anyone to name two things which have destroyed this country or
rather have not allowed the country to progress in the right direction, then the same is,
(i) Reservation and (ii) Corruption. It is very shameful for any citizen of this country to
ask for reservation after 65 years of Independence. When our Constitution was framed,
it was understood that reservation would remain for a period of 10 years, but
unfortunately, it has continued even after 65 years of Independence,” he had said.

He also said “Reservation has only played the role of an amoeboid monster sowing
seeds of discord amongst the people.”

Hours after 58 lawmakers in the Rajya Sabha submitted a petition to the Chair Hamid
Ansari seeking to move an impeachment motion against Gujarat High Court judge J.B.
Pardiwala. The judge on Friday deleted the remarks from his judgment saying those
were not “relevant and necessary” while deciding the petition.

The furore quickly died down after Pardiwala deleted the remarks from his judgment
and thus managed to escape his impeachment.

 JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY:

54 members of the Rajya Sabha, cutting across party lines, have submitted a motion
seeking the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna
Reddy of the High Court for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
This is the second attempt by members of the Upper House (Rajya Sabha) to remove
Justice Nagarjuna Reddy. The first one made by 61 MPs last failed after 19 signatories
withdrew.

The allegations against the Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy were:

1) Misused his position as High Court judge to victimize a Dalit Judge (Main Issue)

Mr. Rama Krishna, formerly Principal Junior Civil Judge was forced by Justice C.V.
Nagarjuna Reddy to remove the name of Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy who happens to
be the brother of Justice Reddy, from a dying declaration recorded by Mr. Rama
Krishna when he was posted as Magistrate. He alleged that Justice Reddy had
summoned him to his home and when he refused to remove the name of his brother
from the dying declaration, he kicked him with his shoes and abused his caste.

2) Charges of Dalit atrocity against spouse, daughter and brother

Another incident of alleged Dalit atrocity pertaining to the registration of an FIR by

the Dalit tenants against Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy’s wife and daughter, is also
mentioned. There also allegations that Mr. Pavan Kumar Reddy commits these
various atrocities against the Dalits community under the protective banner of his
brother, Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy’s influence.

3) Disproportionate income

The motion also alleges that Justice Reddy abused his position to amass several
movable and immovable properties crores of rupees disproportionate to his known
sources of income.

4) Non-Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities

Another allegation against Justice Reddy is that he has not disclosed his assets and
liabilities in violation of the Code of Conduct that mandates declaration of assets of
oneself and dependents by all the judges.
The motion of Impeachment had failed against Justice CV Nagarjuna Reddy as 9
members out of the 54 members supporting the motion of Impeachment had
withdrawn their signatures. As some signatories to the petition have withdrawn
their names there is no motion for his removal.

The AP High Court conducted a trail on the allegations against Justice Nagarjuna
Reddy and found that everything was false and that the magistrate concerned had
done serious mischief. This lead to the withdrawal of the motion of Impeachment.

Bar council of India on this case:

Members of Parliament should have verified facts before rushing with a notice for
the impeachment of Justice Nagarjuna Reddy. The fact that they first made a
complaint and later some MPs decided to withdraw complaint clearly shows that
they had not applied their mind before signing the petition. By this act they have not
only caused serious damage to the reputation of Justice Nagarjuna Reddy, who is
considered one of the best judicial officers in the state, but equally damaged the
institution of the judiciary. This is a dangerous trend. Now which judge will act
independently and fearlessly?