Indian Constitution
Judge’s are also entitled to be impeached for the larger public interest and also for maintaining the sanctity of the Judiciary of the Country. As per the Indian constitution procedure for impeachment of a Supreme court judge is laid down under Art.124(4)
“A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the president passed after an address by each house of parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the house present and voting has been presented to the president in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Judge’s are also entitled to be impeached for the larger public interest and also for maintaining the sanctity of the Judiciary of the Country. As per the Indian constitution procedure for impeachment of a Supreme court judge is laid down under Art.124(4)
“A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the president passed after an address by each house of parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the house present and voting has been presented to the president in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
Precedents
Krishna swami v. union of India, AIR 1993
Willful abuse of judicial office, willful misconduct in the office, corruption, lack of integrity or any other offence involving moral turpitude would be misbehavior. Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of mens rea by the doer. Judicial finding of guilt of grave crime is misconduct. Persistent failure to perform judicial duties of the judge or willful abuse of the office “dolus malus” would be misbehavior. Misbehavior would extend to conduct of the judge in or beyond the execution of judicial office.
C. Ravichandram iyer v. justice A.M. bhattacharjee, (1995)
It was held in that case that the holder of the office of the judge of the SC OR HC should be above the conduct of ordinary mortals in the society. The standards of judicial behavior both on and OFF the bench are normally high and the falling moral and ethical standards in the society are no ruse nor refuse to slacken the higher standards of judicial conduct. The society, therefore, is entitled to expect higher degree or propriety and probity in the judicial conduct of higher judiciary. Even private life of judge must adhere to the standards of probity and propriety, acceptable to others.
Willful abuse of judicial office, willful misconduct in the office, corruption, lack of integrity or any other offence involving moral turpitude would be misbehavior. Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of mens rea by the doer. Judicial finding of guilt of grave crime is misconduct. Persistent failure to perform judicial duties of the judge or willful abuse of the office “dolus malus” would be misbehavior. Misbehavior would extend to conduct of the judge in or beyond the execution of judicial office.
C. Ravichandram iyer v. justice A.M. bhattacharjee, (1995)
It was held in that case that the holder of the office of the judge of the SC OR HC should be above the conduct of ordinary mortals in the society. The standards of judicial behavior both on and OFF the bench are normally high and the falling moral and ethical standards in the society are no ruse nor refuse to slacken the higher standards of judicial conduct. The society, therefore, is entitled to expect higher degree or propriety and probity in the judicial conduct of higher judiciary. Even private life of judge must adhere to the standards of probity and propriety, acceptable to others.
M.Krishna Swami v Union of India (1993)
In light of this case “Existence of definite material or evidence in support of the grounds of the motion, before initiation of the motion – for removal of the judge is, thus, a condition precedent. Lest it would be an open invitation to initiate, for obvious reasons, proceedings to remove the judge and then resort to collecting perjured evidence in support thereof against the judge which is subversive of judicial independence and a death-knell to rule of law. Action in any other way, the speaker would forfeit the trust reposed by the founding fathers of the constitution in that office as well as the confidence of the House of People, i.e., the people of Bharat themselves.”
International constitution’s
There are various constitution in the World which provides provisions of an impeachment on certain proved grounds like in:
U.S.A.- Judges of the SC hold office during good behavior (art.III Sec.i ) and are removable like other federal civil officers by the process of impeachment (Art. II, sec.4).
Australia- Judges of the superior courts are removable by the GG in council on an address from both houses praying for such removal on the ground of ‘Proved misbehavior or incapacity’ (sec.72(ii))
Hence, my dear readers the first goal envisaged in the constitutional and statutory provisions is establishing the truthfulness of the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. This is an end in itself – and not merely a means to the end of removal from office – because the polity of any country will be severely harmed if serious allegations of misbehaviour of high officials are allowed to be left unaddressed.
Good
ReplyDeleteGood
ReplyDeleteNobody is above the law. Of course a judge should and ought to be removed from office and face the law himself if need be. Nice one girlie ��
ReplyDeleteGood affort
ReplyDeleteVery well-penned!
ReplyDeleteGreat shataxshi 👍👍
ReplyDelete