The Hindu: Published on 17th Dec 2024:
Why in News?
55 Rajya Sabha MPs have submitted a motion for the removal of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a judge of the Allahabad High Court.
Justice Yadav allegedly made communally charged remarks during an event organized by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), sparking concerns about judicial impartiality.
The Story So Far:
The MPs submitted the motion to the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha under the provisions of Articles 124 and 217 of the Constitution.
Justice Yadav reportedly stated that the country should be run as per the majority's wishes, which is seen as a violation of judicial conduct.
This event triggered debates on the judiciary's independence and impartiality.
What is the Current Issue?
Justice Yadav’s remarks are viewed as contrary to the values of judicial life outlined in the ‘Reinstatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (1997), which mandates that judges must uphold impartiality.
His statement is seen as unbecoming of his constitutional role, as judges are expected to remain neutral and promote public faith in the judiciary.
There is currently a petition against his removal, but the stringent removal procedure makes it unlikely to succeed.
What is the Procedure for Removal?
The removal of judges is a stringent and detailed process:
Constitutional Basis:
Articles 124 (Supreme Court judges) and 217 (High Court judges) allow for the removal of judges based on ‘proved misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’.
Initiation:
A notice of motion must be signed by at least 50 members in the Rajya Sabha or 100 members in the Lok Sabha.
The Chairman (Rajya Sabha) or Speaker (Lok Sabha) decides to admit or reject the motion.
Inquiry Process:
If admitted, a three-member committee is formed (including Supreme Court/High Court judges and a distinguished jurist) to investigate the charges.
If the judge is absolved, the motion is dropped. If found guilty, the report moves to Parliament.
Parliamentary Approval:
The motion must be passed in both Houses of Parliament with a special majority (two-thirds of members present and voting and a majority of the total membership).
Final Step:
If approved, the President removes the judge from office.
What is Required?
The process ensures that judicial independence is protected while still holding judges accountable.
Removal of judges requires a special majority, which sets a high threshold to prevent misuse of the process.
While such stringency is essential, it often results in non-removal even when judges are found guilty of misconduct.
In this case, the Rajya Sabha Chairman is unlikely to admit the motion, especially considering the political sensitivities and the Supreme Court’s involvement.
Conclusion:
The case against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav highlights the delicate balance between judicial accountability and independence. While stringent processes are necessary to protect the judiciary from external influences, they also make removal extremely difficult. The judiciary's integrity depends on judges adhering to a high standard of conduct, ensuring impartiality and public confidence. In this case, Justice Yadav may need to explain his actions before the Supreme Court Collegium as the investigation proceeds.
Key Points:
- Articles 124 and 217 govern the removal of judges on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Justice Yadav’s remarks triggered concerns about judicial impartiality.
- The stringent removal process ensures judicial independence but makes accountability challenging.
