Removal of Judges

Removing a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court is, by constitutional design, extremely difficult. A judge can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, and a motion listing the charges must be approved by a special majority in both Houses of Parliament — a far higher bar than an ordinary law needs to pass. Unless there is genuine, near-unanimous consensus among Members of Parliament, a judge simply cannot be removed.

Notice the deliberate division of labour this creates: the executive plays the leading role in appointments, while the legislature holds the power of removal. This split is itself a safeguard — it prevents either organ from single-handedly controlling who becomes, or who stays, a judge.

So far, only one case of removing a Supreme Court judge has ever reached Parliament, and it shows exactly how high the bar is set. In 1991, a motion to remove Justice V. Ramaswami — accused, during his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, of misappropriating funds — was signed by 108 Members of Parliament, the first such motion ever. In 1992, an inquiry commission of Supreme Court judges found him guilty of "wilful and gross misuse of office... and moral turpitude by using public funds for private purposes and reckless disregard of statutory rules." Despite that finding, Justice Ramaswami survived: the removal motion secured the required two-thirds majority among members present and voting, but the Congress party abstained from the vote altogether, so the m …