Judicial removal of judges in India: Explained
Context
In December 2025, 107 Lok Sabha MPs gave notice of a motion seeking removal of Justice G. R. Swaminathan.
The notice was submitted to the Om Birla.
The episode has renewed debate on judicial impeachment / removal procedure and its loopholes.
Constitutional provisions
Removal (not “impeachment”)
The Constitution uses the term “removal” for judges.
“Impeachment” is used only for the President (Article 61).
Relevant Articles
Supreme Court judge:
Article 124(4) – Grounds and parliamentary majority
Article 124(5) – Parliament may regulate procedure by law
High Court judge:
Article 217(1)(b)
Article 218 (applies Article 124 procedure)
Statutory framework
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Judges (Inquiry) Rules
Enacted under Article 124(5)
Grounds for removal
Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
“Misbehaviour” not defined in Constitution, but judicially interpreted as:
Corruption
Wilful misconduct
Lack of integrity
Moral turpitude
Wilful abuse of judicial office
Key Supreme Court interpretations
K. Veeraswami vs Union of India
Judicial honesty standards are “exacting and absolute”.
M. Krishna Swami vs Union of India
Errors of judgment ≠ misbehaviour
Misbehaviour requires mens rea and wilful abuse.
Procedure for removal
Initiation
Motion signed by:
100 Lok Sabha MPs, or
50 Rajya Sabha MPs
Submitted to:
Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha)
Parliamentary majority required
In each House separately:
Majority of total membership, and
Two-thirds of members present and voting
The critical loophole
Discretion of Speaker/Chairman
Speaker/Chairman may:
Admit, or
Disallow the motion at the threshold
If disallowed:
No inquiry committee is formed
Proceedings lapse entirely
Why this is problematic
The Act:
Does not specify admissibility criteria
Speaker/Chairman:
Acts as a statutory authority, not merely as presiding officer
Decision:
Can be arbitrary
Can defeat a constitutional process
Practical risk:
Removal can be blocked if the government does not favour it
Core argument
Article 124(5) allows Parliament to regulate procedure, not to create a veto point.
Proof of misbehaviour is meant to be established by:
A three-member inquiry committee (SC judge + HC Chief Justice + jurist)
Therefore:
Threshold rejection by Speaker/Chairman undermines constitutional intent
Conclusion:
The Speaker/Chairman’s power to disallow the motion needs reconsideration.
Prelims Practice MCQs
Q. With reference to the removal of judges in India, consider the following statements:
The Constitution uses the term “impeachment” for removal of Supreme Court judges.
The procedure for removal of High Court judges is broadly the same as that for Supreme Court judges.
Parliament is empowered to regulate the investigation procedure for removal of judges.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
A. 1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Correct answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect: The Constitution uses “removal”, not impeachment, for judges.
Statements 2 and 3 are correct.
Q. Which of the following Articles deals with the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court of India?
A. Article 61
B. Article 124(4)
C. Article 217
D. Article 356
Correct answer: B
Explanation:
Article 124(4) provides for removal of Supreme Court judges. Article 61 relates to the President.
Q. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was enacted under which constitutional provision?
A. Article 122
B. Article 217(1)
C. Article 124(5)
D. Article 368
Correct answer: C
Explanation:
Article 124(5) empowers Parliament to regulate the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour.