Judge removal involves several steps. Here's how it proceeds
Judge removal involves several steps. Here's how it proceeds
Once a judicial inquiry committee concludes in its report about wrongdoing by a constitutional court judge, the CJI, on being satisfied with the committee's finding, offers an opportunity to the judge concerned to resign.
If the judge refuses, then the CJI forwards the inquiry report to the President, who is the appointing authority, and the PM. The PM and the Union Cabinet, after discussing the report, may ask the law ministry/parliamentary affairs ministry to initiate a motion for removal.
A notice for motion of removal against the judge can be moved in Rajya Sabha if 50 or more MPs sign the motion, and in Lok Sabha if 100 or more MPs agree to put their signatures to it.
Once the motion is placed before the LS Speaker or RS chairman, in either case, he carries out a preliminary review of the report as well as the accompanying motion and has the power to 'admit or refuse to admit' the notice of motion for removal (Section 3 of Judges Inquiry Act, 1968).
In the event of admitting the notice of motion for removal, the head of the House concerned will keep the motion pending and constitute a three-member committee for 'the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for'.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
The committee will comprise either the CJI or a judge of the SC, an HC chief justice and a distinguished jurist. The committee will then frame charges against the judge concerned. '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 defence within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the committee,' the Act provides.
Section 4 of the Act provides, '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 defence.' The committee, after conclusion of the investigation, will present a report to the head of the House concerned where the motion for removal is pending.
If the report finds the judge 'not guilty', then no further steps will be taken, and the motion will be treated as infructuous.
If the report finds the judge guilty, then the head of the House will lay the report before the House as soon as possible and the House will take up the motion for removal for debate.
The motion will then have to be passed by each House, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than twothirds of the members of the House present and voting.
It will then be presented to the President for removal of the judge. A notice for motion of removal against the judge can be moved in Rajya Sabha if 50 or more MPs sign the motion, and in Lok Sabha if 100 or more MPs agree to put their signatures to it
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Entire complexion of Delhi HC is changing': Justice Dharmesh Sharma, who held Kuldeep Sengar guilty in Unnao rape case, retires
Terming it a positive change, Justice Dharmesh Sharma of the Delhi High Court said Friday that 'the entire complexion of the HC is changing' with 'so many outsiders coming'. He was speaking at a farewell organised for him by the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) ahead of his official retirement on June 8, when the court will be on vacation. The remarks come at a time when the Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on May 26 recommended the transfer of three judges to the Delhi High Court, including Justice Nitin Sambre of the Bombay High Court, Justice Vivek Chaudhary from the Allahabad High Court, and Justice V Kameswar Rao, who is being repatriated to his parent high court of Delhi from Karnataka High Court. Incumbent Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya too took charge in January after being transferred from the Bombay High Court. As a judge of the trial court and the special court to hear cases under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, Justice Sharma had in 2019 held former BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar guilty of rape of a minor girl in Unnao in 2017. Stating that he will join the Bar 'soon', Justice Sharma said, 'A lot many things are happening, if I'm allowed to say. The entire complexion of the (Delhi) HC is also changing and…sometimes now this high court is looking like an IPL franchise because so many outsider players are coming and (will) come in future. I think it's a good thing…' 'I don't know how to end my note because it is a little emotional for me… I'm thankful… The justice delivery system needs some overhauling, some changes, yes. You may please bring about some objectivity to whatever is happening around… We can do more about it,' he added. Speaking at the full court farewell reference of Justice Sharma, Chief Justice Upadhyaya said on Friday, 'He was deeply involved in the institutionalising of legal aid framework, infrastructure development and streaming of various legal awareness programmes across the Capital…He is known to be a judge of great practical wisdom and he always remained oriented to grant relief to litigants in the court.' Justice Sharma had, in September 2024, dismissed a petition by the Shahi Idgah (Waqf) managing committee opposing the installation of a Rani of Jhansi statue inside the Shahi Idgah Park in Sadar Bazar and sought that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) be restrained from such encroachments. Earning his law degree in 1987, he practised at trial courts in Delhi, mainly in civil matters. He was also appointed as the additional standing counsel of the Centre during this time before joining the Delhi Judicial Services in 1992. After serving a little over a decade, he was elevated to the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in August 2003. From 2017-19, he served as a principal judge of the family court and was later appointed as principal district judge of New Delhi till he was elevated to the Delhi High Court in May 2023. He served as secretary of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee during 2007-08 and also as member secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) during 2014-17.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to hear man's plea against detention of mother by Assam Police
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on June 2 a plea of a 26-year-old man claiming illegal detention of his mother by Assam Police amid widespread allegations of covert deportations to Bangladesh. A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Augustine George Masih and AS Chandurkar took note of the submissions of senior advocate Shoeb Alam, representing petitioner Iunuch Ali, that his mother has been detained by the state police. The CJI said the plea would be listed for hearing on Monday. Ali sought immediate release of his mother Monowara Bewa, who was reportedly detained on May 24 after being called to the Dhubri police station under the pretext of recording a statement. Alam raised serious concerns regarding what he described as an ongoing practice in Assam under which individuals are detained and deported to Bangladesh overnight, even while their legal cases are pending. "There is a Special Leave Petition filed by the lady in 2017. Notices have been issued, and yet people are being deported while proceedings are still ongoing before this court," he said. "There are several videos circulating that show individuals being picked up overnight and pushed back across the border," he added. Bewa had been on bail since December 12, 2019, pursuant to the Supreme Court's order in a case, which allowed the conditional release of detenues who had spent more than three years in Assam's foreigner detention camps. According to the plea, when the petitioner approached the police station the next day and informed the officials that their case was still pending before the Supreme Court, he was denied access to his mother and her release was refused. The petition challenges the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which upheld a Foreigners Tribunal ruling declaring Bewa a foreigner - a decision that has remained under challenge before the Supreme Court since 2017. The plea sought a direction to the authorities to immediately release Bewa from "unlawful detention" at Dhubri police station. It also sought a direction restraining deportation or "push back" of the detainee across any Indian border.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
High court strikes down Punjab formula for premature release of prisoners
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that parole must be deducted from the total sentence, including remission, and not from the actual sentence, which covers only the time spent in custody while considering eligibility for premature release of prisoners. Setting aside the Punjab government's October 2024 order denying life convict Rupinder Singh's release, the court directed a fresh assessment of his case within four weeks. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, who delivered the ruling on May 29, also struck down the state's 2020 formula that excluded parole from the actual sentence. 'The formula prescribed in meeting dated 16.07.2020 is held to be invalid, being in direct contravention of Section 3(3) of the Act of 1962… It is directed that the parole period shall only be subtracted from the total sentence and not from the actual sentence,' the court said. The court found the state's formula—actual custody during undertrial plus custody post-conviction, minus the parole period—lacked legal backing and contradicted the Punjab Good Conduct of Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962. Section 3(3) of the Act states: 'The period of release under this section shall not count towards the total period of the sentence of a prisoner.' Interpreting this, Justice Brar clarified, 'Actual sentence must be interpreted to mean the real time spent by a prisoner behind bars. and therefore, has two parts only i.e. (i) Actual time undergone in custody as an undertrial and (ii) Actual time undergone as a convict. Thus, the quantum of actual sentence is a matter of fact, a constant number…Total sentence, for the purpose of premature release, would include the actual sentence undergone by the prisoner and the remission earned by him.' The court held that Singh's case must be considered under the 1991 premature release policy, which requires 10 years of actual imprisonment and 14 years, including remission. Citing Raj Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024(9) SCC 598, the court said, 'The State having formulated Rules and a Standing Policy for deciding cases of premature release, it is bound by its own formulations of law… It must strictly abide by the terms of its policies bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law that each case for premature release has to be decided on the basis of the legal position as it stands on the date of the conviction.' The court also referred to Avtar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2002 SCC (Cri.) 504, noting, 'Ordinarily, the period of temporary release of a prisoner on parole needs to be counted towards the total period of detention, but this condition can be curtailed by legislative act, rules, instructions or terms of the grant of parole.' As no such legal change had been made, the court said Section 3(3) remained applicable. Rupinder Singh was convicted of murder on August 11, 2014, by the Sessions Court in Hoshiarpur under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was upheld by the high court on October 3, 2019, and by the Supreme Court on November 22, 2019. Seeking premature release under the 1991 policy, Singh's case was considered by the court on January 16, 2024. The state later challenged this, and on March 24, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed it to file a review petition. The key issue was whether over three years of Singh's parole should be deducted from his actual time served or from the total sentence. The state's 2020 clarification favoured the former, delaying his eligibility. Singh's lawyers, Nandan Jindal and Tushar Sabherwal, argued that the 2020 clarification was applied retrospectively and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21. They cited Jai Kishan @ Bhola vs. State of Punjab (2022) and Baljeet Singh @ Rangi vs. State of Punjab (2022). Deputy Advocate General Pardeep Bajaj, appearing for the state, relied on Rohan Dhungat vs. State of Goa (2023 AIR SC 265), but the court held it was not applicable due to differences in state laws. Justice Brar noted, 'The objective behind the Act of 1962 is humanitarian in nature… Ensuring that the incarcerated have healthy roots in the society greatly assists in their rehabilitation and reintegration.'
