Impeachment and In-House Inquiry for Judges | 09 Dec 2025

Source: TH 

Why in News?  

INDIA bloc Members of Parliament (MPs) intend to submit an impeachment motion in Parliament against Justice G.R. Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. 

  • The move follows his order directing the Subramaniya Swamy Temple authorities to ensure the lighting of a lamp at the deepathoon (pillar) near a dargah during the Karthigai Deepam festival. 

What is the Impeachment Process for Judges in India? 

  • Judicial Impeachment: Though the term “impeachment” is not explicitly used in the Constitution, it refers to the formal process of removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, aimed at ensuring judicial accountability without political interference. 
  • Constitutional & Legal Basis: Articles 124(4) of the Constitution of India, along with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, provide the framework for removing judges of the Supreme Court. Article 218 extends these provisions to High Court judges. 
    • Judges can only be removed for Proved misbehaviour (serious ethical or professional misconduct) and incapacity (Inability to discharge duties due to physical or mental reasons). 
  • Impeachment Process: 
    • Initiating the Motion: An impeachment motion can be introduced in either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha.  
      • It must have the support of at least 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs in the Rajya Sabha.  
      • The motion can proceed only if accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman.  
    • Inquiry Committee: A three-member committee is set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It includes a Supreme Court judge (or the Chief Justice of India), the Chief Justice of a High Court, and an eminent jurist.  
      • The committee acts like a fact-finding body and holds a quasi-judicial inquiry into the charges. 
    • Committee Report and Parliamentary Debate: The inquiry committee submits its report to the House that initiated the motion.  
      • If the judge is found guilty, the motion is debated and must be passed in both Houses by a special majority (two-thirds present and voting, plus absolute majority of total membership).  
      • After Parliament’s approval, the President issues the final removal order. 
  • Key Drawbacks: If the judge resigns mid-process, proceedings usually end. 
    • No judge has been successfully impeached in India so far. 
    • A very high voting threshold makes removal extremely rare.

In-house Inquiry Procedure 

  • Origin and Purpose: The Supreme Court introduced an in-house inquiry procedure in 1999.  
    • This was prompted by the C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee case (1995), which exposed the absence of a mechanism to deal with judicial misconduct falling below the impeachment (Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution) threshold. 
    • In-house Inquiry Procedure aimed to address judicial misconduct below the impeachment threshold, it bridges the gap between minor misconduct and “proved misbehaviour”. 
  • Screening of Complaints:Complaints are examined by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, or Chief Justice of India (CJI) directly. 
    • Frivolous complaints are rejected at an early stage. Serious complaints require a response from the judge. 
  • Constitution of Inquiry Committee: If further inquiry is needed, the CJI forms a three-member committee (different compositions for HC Judges, HC Chief Justices, or SC Judges). 
    • High Court Judge: (3-member committee  comprising 2 Chief Justices of other High Courts and 1 High Court judge). 
    • High Court Chief Justice: (3-member committee comprising 1 Supreme Court judge and 2 High Court Chief Justices). 
    • Supreme Court Judge: (3-member committee comprising 3 Supreme Court judges) 
    • Chief Justice of India (CJI): (No specific in-house procedure defined). 
    • The committee conducts the inquiry while ensuring natural justice, allowing the judge to respond.  
  • Outcomes:  
    • Misconduct is Proved: The judge may be advised to resign or take voluntary retirement. 
      • Upon refusal, the judge may be relieved of judicial duties, and if necessary, the CJI may recommend impeachment. 
    • Misconduct is Minor: The judge is cautioned and the report is placed on record.

Drishti Mains Question:

Examine the constitutional procedure for the removal of judges in India and discuss why no judge has been successfully impeached so far.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Q. What constitutional provisions govern removal of superior court judges? 
Removal is governed by Article 124(4) (Supreme Court) and Article 218 (extension to High Courts), read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; grounds are proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

Q. What parliamentary support is needed to initiate an impeachment motion? 
A motion requires signatures of 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs, and if proved, must be passed by a special majority in both Houses (absolute majority + two-thirds of members present and voting). 

Q. What is the in-house procedure and why was it introduced? 
Adopted in 1999 (post-1995 Ravichandran Iyer case), the in-house procedure lets the judiciary investigate lesser misconduct through peer committees, bridging the gap between minor lapses and impeachable offences. 

Summary 

  • The Thirupparankundram Deepathoon order of Justice G.R. Swaminathan allowing the Karthigai Deepam near a dargah triggered a major political controversy. 
  • The INDIA bloc initiated steps for impeachment, bringing the rarely used constitutional removal process of judges into focus. 
  • Judicial impeachment is governed by Articles 124(4) and 218 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, requiring a special majority in both Houses of Parliament. 
  • The case has also highlighted the Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry procedure (1999), which deals with misconduct below the impeachment threshold. 

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Prelims 

Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:(2021) 

  1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India. 
  2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?  

(a) 1 only  

(b) 2 only  

(c) Both 1 and 2  

(d) Neither I nor 2  

Ans: (c)  

Mains

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)