Which of the following is/are the part/parts of the procedure for the impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India ? 1. A motion signed by atlcast 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha is delivered to the Speaker or Chairman. 2. The motion is investigated by a Committee of three Jurists constituted by the Speaker or Chairman, 3. The Judge will be removed by the Speaker or Chairman if the Committee of three Jurists recommends. Select the correct answer using the code given below :

1. The Constitutional Framework of the Supreme Court (basic)

Welcome to your first step in mastering the intricacies of the Indian Judiciary! To understand how a judge is removed, we must first look at the Constitutional Framework that protects them. The Supreme Court of India is established under Article 124 of the Constitution. While the Constitution is the supreme law, it doesn't list every tiny detail of the removal process; instead, it provides the broad 'skeleton' and empowers Parliament to add the 'flesh' through legislation M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p.296.

Under Article 124(4), a judge can only be removed by an order of the President. However, the President cannot act alone. This order can only be issued after an address by Parliament has been presented to them in the same session. Furthermore, Article 124(5) gives Parliament the specific power to regulate the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a judge. This led to the enactment of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the step-by-step roadmap we see today M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p.287.

This framework is designed to ensure Judicial Independence. By making the removal process rigorous and involving both the Legislature and the Executive, the Constitution ensures that judges can deliver justice without fear of arbitrary removal by the government of the day. It is a delicate balance of accountability and autonomy.

Sources: Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.287; Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.296

2. Safeguarding the Independence of the Judiciary (intermediate)

To understand the complexity of the removal process, we must first appreciate the 'shield' the Constitution provides to our judges. The Supreme Court and High Courts are the **guardians of the Constitution** and the protectors of fundamental rights. If judges were constantly worried about losing their jobs or having their salaries cut because they ruled against the government, the rule of law would collapse. Therefore, the Constitution builds a 'fortress' of independence around them to ensure they function 'without fear or favour' Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.356. This independence is built on three major pillars:

• Security of Tenure: Judges do not hold office at the 'pleasure' of the President (unlike many other officials). They have a fixed tenure and can only be removed by the President on specific grounds (proved misbehaviour or incapacity) following a rigorous procedure in Parliament. This difficulty is intentional; it ensures they aren't removed for political reasons NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.126.
• Financial Independence: The salaries, allowances, and pensions of Supreme Court judges (and the pensions of High Court judges) are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, p.258. This means these expenses are not subject to a vote in Parliament, preventing the legislature from using financial 'blackmail' to influence judicial decisions.
• Immunity from Criticism: The Constitution prohibits the discussion of a judge's conduct in the legislature, except when a formal removal motion is being considered. This protects them from political grandstanding and pressure from lawmakers Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.289.

Feature	Significance for Independence
Mode of Appointment	Involvement of the judiciary itself curtails absolute executive discretion.
Security of Tenure	Prevents arbitrary removal by the ruling government.
Charged Expenditure	Ensures salaries cannot be manipulated by the legislature.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, High Court, p.356; Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.126; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The Union Legislature, p.258; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.289

3. Parliamentary Control and Judicial Conduct (intermediate)

In our constitutional scheme, there is a delicate balance between the Judiciary and the Legislature. To protect the independence of the courts, Article 121 of the Constitution strictly prohibits any discussion in Parliament regarding the conduct of a Supreme Court or High Court judge while they are performing their duties D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Union Legislature, p.251. This ensures that judges can deliver verdicts without fearing a 'political trial' in the House. However, this immunity is not absolute; the only time this silence can be broken is when a formal motion for the removal of the judge is being considered.

The process of exercising this control is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It is designed to be a multi-layered filter to prevent frivolous or politically motivated attacks on the judiciary. The process follows a specific sequence:

• Initiation: A removal motion must be signed by at least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.287.
• Investigation: If the Speaker or Chairman admits the motion, they constitute a three-member committee to investigate the charges of 'proved misbehaviour' or 'incapacity'.
• The Vote: If the committee finds the judge guilty, the motion must be passed by each House of Parliament by a special majority (a majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting).

As you can see, the bar is set incredibly high. Parliament acts as a jury, but only after a high-level judicial committee has vetted the facts. To understand the composition of this critical committee, look at the table below:

Committee Member	Role/Requirement
Member 1	A Judge of the Supreme Court
Member 2	A Chief Justice of a High Court
Member 3	A Distinguished Jurist

Even if both Houses pass the motion, the judge is not removed immediately. The final step requires an address to be presented to the President, who then issues the formal order for removal M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.288.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, The Union Legislature, p.251; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.287; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Supreme Court, p.288

4. Comparative Removal: High Court Judges, CAG, and CEC (intermediate)

In our previous steps, we focused on the Supreme Court. However, to maintain the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of India's watchdog institutions, the Constitution extends the exact same rigorous removal process to other critical offices. This is often referred to as the "Removal in the same manner and on the same grounds" principle. By linking their tenure to the Supreme Court standard, the Constitution ensures that these officials cannot be dismissed by the executive for political reasons. For a High Court Judge, the procedure is identical to that of an SC judge: they are removed by an order of the President only after an address by Parliament has been presented in the same session, supported by a special majority Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.355. Similarly, the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) is granted the same security of tenure. Under Article 148(1), the CAG can only be removed from office in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Executive, p.234. This parity ensures that whether an official is auditing the nation's accounts or presiding over a state's highest court, they remain insulated from government pressure.

Office	Constitutional Provision	Removal Standard
High Court Judge	Article 217	Same as SC Judge (Art 124)
Comptroller & Auditor General	Article 148	Same as SC Judge (Art 124)
Chief Election Commissioner	Article 324	Same as SC Judge (Art 124)

It is vital to note a nuance often tested by the UPSC: while the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) enjoys this high level of protection, the other Election Commissioners do not. They can be removed by the President simply on the recommendation of the CEC. This highlights how the "SC removal standard" is reserved for the most pivotal anchors of our democracy.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.355; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), The Union Executive, p.234

5. Grounds for Removal: 'Proved Misbehaviour' and 'Incapacity' (exam-level)

In our journey to understand judicial accountability, we must look at the 'Why' before the 'How.' The Constitution of India provides a high shield of independence to judges, ensuring they can rule without fear or favour. Consequently, a judge cannot be removed simply because the government dislikes their judgment. Under Article 124(4) for the Supreme Court and Article 217(1) for High Courts, there are only two—and only two—exclusive grounds for removal: 'Proved Misbehaviour' and 'Incapacity' Indian Polity, High Court, p.355.

While the Constitution does not provide a rigid definition for these terms in the context of the judiciary, legal jurisprudence and scholarly interpretations offer clarity. 'Misbehaviour' is not merely a professional mistake or a legal error that can be corrected by a higher court; it implies improper conduct or a breach of the code of conduct. Crucially, as noted by legal experts, it often involves a degree of mens rea (a guilty mind or wrongful intent) Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.342. In contrast, 'Incapacity' refers to a physical or mental inability that prevents a judge from performing their constitutional duties effectively.

The prefix 'Proved' is the most critical word here. It signifies that these charges cannot remain mere allegations. Before Parliament even votes on a removal motion, the charges must be investigated and verified by a quasi-judicial committee. This ensures that the removal process remains a legal exercise and doesn't devolve into a purely political one Indian Constitution at Work, JUDICIARY, p.128.

Concept	Scope	Legal Threshold
Proved Misbehaviour	Corruption, moral turpitude, or willful abuse of power.	Requires proof of mens rea; not applicable to simple errors of judgment.
Incapacity	Physical or mental ailment.	Must be a functional inability to discharge the duties of the office.

Sources: Indian Polity, High Court, p.355; Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.342; Indian Constitution at Work, JUDICIARY, p.128

6. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: The Statutory Procedure (exam-level)

While Article 124(4) of the Constitution sets the grounds for removal (proven misbehaviour or incapacity), the actual step-by-step 'playbook' is found in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This Act ensures that the removal of a judge is a quasi-judicial process, combining a rigorous legal investigation with a high-stakes parliamentary vote to safeguard judicial independence Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p.287.

The process begins with a removal motion. To prevent frivolous attempts, the Act requires a minimum number of sponsors: at least 100 members if initiated in the Lok Sabha, or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha. This motion is handed to the Speaker or Chairman, who holds the discretionary power to either admit the motion or refuse it outright. If admitted, the presiding officer must appoint a three-member committee to investigate the charges. This committee is carefully balanced to ensure legal expertise:

• A Judge of the Supreme Court
• A Chief Justice of a High Court
• A distinguished jurist

If this committee finds the judge guilty, the motion is then taken up for consideration by the House. However, the committee's finding is a necessary condition, not a final verdict; the ultimate power lies with Parliament Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26, p.288.

The final hurdle is the Special Majority. Each House must pass the motion by a majority of its total membership AND a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting. As noted in NCERT Class XI, Judiciary, p.128, this requirement is so stringent that no judge of the Supreme Court has been successfully removed through this process to date. Once both Houses pass the address in the same session, it is presented to the President, who issues the final order for removal.

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.287-288; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT), JUDICIARY, p.128

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

Now that you have mastered the Judicial Independence framework, this question tests your ability to synthesize the constitutional provisions of Article 124(4) with the procedural mandates of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. You have learned that a Judge cannot be removed at the whim of the executive; instead, the process follows a rigorous, multi-stage sequence that balances parliamentary oversight with judicial inquiry. This question specifically checks if you can distinguish between the initiation, investigation, and final removal phases of that sequence.

Let’s walk through the logic to arrive at (B) 1 and 2 only. Statement 1 is correct as it accurately reflects the high initiation threshold—100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha—designed to prevent frivolous charges. Statement 2 correctly identifies the investigative stage where a three-member committee (comprising a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist) must find the judge guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity. However, Statement 3 is a classic UPSC trap. Even if the committee recommends removal, the Speaker or Chairman does not have the authority to remove a judge. The motion must still be passed by a Special Majority in both Houses, and the final order is always issued by the President of India.

The common pitfall here is confusing the presiding officer’s role in admitting the motion with the executive's role in the final removal. UPSC often uses substitution traps, replacing the President with the Speaker to see if you can pinpoint exactly where the legislative process ends. By remembering that the committee is merely a fact-finding body and not a final decider, you can easily eliminate Statement 3 and any options containing it, leading you directly to the correct answer.