SC Upholds Impeachment Inquiry Against HC Judge
In News
What Happened
Why It Matters
Background
History & Context
What Changed
- ▶
BEFORE: There was ambiguity on whether the rejection of a removal motion in one House of Parliament barred the other House from taking up the same matter. NOW: The Supreme Court definitively ruled that each House has independent constitutional authority to initiate removal proceedings, meaning a rejection in the Rajya Sabha does not block the Lok Sabha.
- ▶
BEFORE: Petitioners argued that sequential removal motions across different Houses could violate procedural fairness and the statutory framework of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. NOW: The ruling clarifies that the Act does not prohibit the Speaker of the other House from admitting a valid motion and constituting a three-member inquiry committee.
- ▶
BEFORE: The extent of the Speaker's discretion to admit an impeachment motion after a prior rejection in the other House was relatively untested. NOW: The Speaker's discretionary power to admit a validly signed motion is protected, affirming parliamentary autonomy and the separation of powers.
Prelims Angle
NCERT Connection
Practice Questions
Q1
Correct Statement(s)Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the removal of High Court judges in India? 1. A removal motion requires the signatures of at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. 2. If the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha rejects a removal motion, the Lok Sabha Speaker is constitutionally barred from admitting a similar motion against the same judge.