Home › PYQs › Polity › All questions › 2019 · Removing a judge
UPSC Prelims 2019 · Polity · Judiciary
Consider the following statements:
- The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
- The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.
- (a) 1 and 2
- (b) 3 only
- (c) 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 3 and 4
Show the answer and explanation
Answer: (c) 3 and 4 only
The Act gives the procedure (3); the Constitution gives the special majority (4).
Statement by statement
1. ✗ WRONG Under the Act the Speaker (or Chairman) may admit or refuse the motion after consulting whoever they wish. It is not automatic.
2. ✗ WRONG Art. 124(4) only names the two grounds. It does not define them.
3. ✓ CORRECT Notice signed by 100 LS or 50 RS members → admitted → three-member inquiry committee (a SC judge, a HC Chief Justice, a distinguished jurist) → if guilty, the House considers the motion.
4. ✓ CORRECT — Art. 124(4) The special majority: majority of total membership AND two-thirds of those present and voting, in each House, in the same session.
The idea
No Supreme Court judge has ever been removed. The motion against Justice V. Ramaswami (1993) failed in the Lok Sabha. “Impeachment” is the popular word — the Constitution says removal for judges and uses “impeachment” only for the President.
Notice: 100 LS / 50 RS MPs → Speaker/Chairman may admit or refuse → 3-member inquiry committee → special majority in both Houses → President’s order
Why the others are wrong
(a) Both 1 and 2 are false: the Speaker can refuse, and the Constitution defines neither ground.
(b) Drops statement 4, which is the special majority in Art. 124(4).
(d) Statement 1 is the reverse of the Act — the Speaker can refuse to admit the motion.
The trap
Statement 1 sounds like a safeguard that makes the process fair. In the Act the presiding officer has the power to refuse.
🔒 Judge removal: grounds in Art. 124(4) (not defined) · procedure in the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 · special majority in each House · Speaker may refuse the motion.