India’s Review Mechanism for Higher Judicial Judges

• A three-member committee decides on “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” in a judge.

• The committee functions like a trial court, set in motion after a successful impeachment attempt.

• Provisions for this mechanism are derived from Articles 124 (4), (5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution of India, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

• Only two out of seven judges have been found guilty for their “misbehaviour.”

• The panel’s finding must be voted upon by Parliament, requiring a two-thirds majority of present MPs voting in favour of the motion or an absolute majority in each House.

• The adverse verdict set the precedent for then CJI Sabyasachi Mukherjee deciding not to allocate any work to him in 1993.

• Justice Soumitra Sen and Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran resigned before an impeachment motion was tabled in the Lok Sabha.

• These resignations abort the trial and subsequent impeachment, something not afforded to even sitting or former Chief Ministers.

• The Forum for Judicial Accountability (FJA) argued that the removal process of a justice involves finding guilt and impeachment, which are governed by Article 124 (5) and (4) respectively.