A judge of the Supreme Court is removable from his office, only on the grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity. Parliament is empowered to regulate the procedure for the investigation and proof of such misbehavior or incapacity. Whatever the procedure, each House will have to pass a resolution supported by two-thirds of the members present and voting and a majority of the total membership of the House and address it to the President. The President will then issue orders for removal of the judge.
1. Procedure for Removal:
Article 124(4) and the Judges Inquiry Act 1968 determine the procedure of removal of the judges:
(i) A motion of impeachment addressed to the President is to be signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha and then delivered to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha.
(ii) The motion is to be investigated by a Committee of 3 judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist
(iii) If the Committee finds the judge guilty of misbehavior or that he suffers from incapacity, the motion along with the report of the committee is taken up for consideration in the House where motion was moved
(iv) The judge is then removed by the requisite majority, i.e. majority of total and 2/3 of its members present and voting.
The procedure of impeachment was adopted against R. Ramaswamy in 1991- 93. The judge was found guilty by the Committee in the Lok Sabha. The Congress abstained from voting and the motion could not be passed by the requisite majority.
2. Its Establishment and Control:
The Constitution authorized the Supreme Court to have its own establishment and to have complete control over it. The framers of the Constitution were of the opinion that in the absence of such a provision, the Court’s independence may be illusory. If the establishment had to look for preferment or for promotion to other quarters, it was likely to impair the independence of the judiciary.
All the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court are made by the Chief Justice or any other judge or office, so deputed by him for the purpose. The conditions of service of these officers are also determined by the Court. The expenses incurred on them as well as other maintenance charges of the Court’s establishment, are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
All the actions and decisions of the judges in their official capacity are immune from criticism. A decision of the Court or an opinion of a judge may, however, be subjected to a critical academic analysis. Attributing motives to the judges in arriving at decisions is not allowed. Parliament may not discuss the conduct of a judge except when his removal is being taken up.
The Court is empowered to initiate contempt proceedings against any alleged offender, to maintain its dignity and protect it from malicious criticism. An editorial comment on one of its decisions in the “Times of India” in 1953 was made the subject of contempt proceedings against the Editor, Printer and the Publisher of the said paper.
The Court held “No objection could have been taken to the article, had it merely preached to the Court of Law the sermon of divine detachment. But when it proceeded to attribute improper motives to the judges, it not only transgressed the limits of fair and bona fide criticism but had a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of the Court. The article in question was thus a gross contempt of court.” The contempt proceedings of the Court have not simply been confined to safeguard of its dignity and prestige, but also to stop an act likely to be prejudicial to its impartial decision.