Introduction

• Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution.
• To protect judges from arbitrary removal, Articles 124(4), 124(5), and 218 prescribe a stringent removal process based only on proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• However, recent developments, including the resignation of judges during inquiry, have reignited the debate on balancing judicial independence with accountability.

Constitutional Framework

• Article 124(4): Supreme Court judges can be removed by the President after Parliament passes an address on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
• Article 218: Extends the same procedure to High Court judges.
• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Prescribes inquiry procedure through a three-member committee.

Removal requires:

• Motion by 100 LS / 50 RS MPs.
• Approval by special majority in both Houses.
• Presidential order after parliamentary approval.

Challenges

• Resignation loophole: Judges can resign during inquiry; the Act is silent on continuation of proceedings.
• Political influence: Admission of removal motion depends on the Speaker/Chairman.
• High voting threshold: Enables political shielding despite adverse inquiry findings.
• Limited grounds: Covers only misbehaviour and incapacity; delays and ethical lapses remain outside.
• No public complaint mechanism: Proceedings depend entirely on MPs initiating the motion.
• No post-resignation consequences: Pension and retirement benefits remain unaffected despite proven misconduct.

Way Forward

• Establish a National Judicial Council/National Judicial Commission (ARC, NCRWC recommendations).
• Revive the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill.
• Introduce intermediate disciplinary measures (Law Commission).
• Allow citizen complaints through an independent oversight body.
• Ensure inquiries continue even after resignation to prevent accountability evasion.
• Increase transparency by requiring reasons for admitting or rejecting removal motions.

Conclusion

An independent judiciary is indispensable for constitutional democracy, but independence cannot become immunity from accountability. Strengthening institutional mechanisms while preserving judicial autonomy is essential to uphold public confidence in the justice delivery system.