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”.
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
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”.
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
You may also like
Erik ten Hag planning double Man Utd raid after taking over at Bayer Leverkusen
Arsenal snubbed by 'immovable' Roma star as Mikel Arteta forced into transfer rethink
Meet The 10 Indian AI Startups Selected For Global Acceleration Programme
Hera Pheri 3: 'Hera Pheri 3' will not be fun without Paresh Rawal', Johnny Lever said- the dispute with Akshay Kumar should be resolved..
SIP Master Plan: 5 Expert Hacks to Maximize Mutual Fund Growth
