Removal Of Supreme Court Judges

A Judge of Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than 2/3 of the members of house present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. 

Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).

Every person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court shall, before he enter upon his office, make and subscribe before the President, or same person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the 3rd schedule. No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India. This clause of a qualification of a Advocate having 10 years or more practice in High Court was taken into consideration by Mr.Rajiv Gandhi, as a Prime Minister, he recommended to the President for appointment of Justice T.Natarajan, Madras High Court a practicing Advocate from Madras High Court was straight way appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court of India. This is break though of the convention. 

That appointment was the first and last of such a practising advocate of a High Court being appointed straight as a Judge of the Supreme Court. Except above cited occasions the convention for appointment of Chief Justice of India and other Judges appointment of Chief Justice of India and judge of the Supreme Court were made on the recommendation of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi only of mileage. It was an unfortunate event in the annals of a History of Appointment of Judges in the events with a view to gain political advantage by the P.M. of the country who recommended the name to the President. The President who appointed them in the above occasions was not above any cloud of suspecting the integrity of the highest officers of the country. The President, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and the Judge of the Supreme Court. 

Most of the Judge of the Supreme Court is those previously senior Judges on High Courts.

What criteria and guide lines are being applied? What level of scrutiny is done before a Judge of the High Courts is elevated to the Supreme Court? At present, the choices are made seemingly according to the foney of the Judges who constitute that should help reveal the class bias of those who are chosen. The Bar is the Judge of the Judges and no Judge can avoid or escape the verdict of the bar.

A performance commission is a necessary instrument to assess the worth of Judges proposed for elevation or for extension of tenure or for ad hoc appointment; there are no checks on the decisions of the collegiums. The whole system needs reform and principles need to be set out on a candidate’s social philosophy bedlam process why it should be retained. The Supreme Court is the conscience keeper of the proprietary. Arbitrary power will corrupt even the best of persons absolutely. The colleguim is a Judicial Creation and a syndrome of the personality cult, being beyond accountability. It is a bixarre on its performance. Its selection process is secret and suspect, and is subject of no scrutiny. It exerclude the executive and is in that respect unique in the world. Parliament must take a law regarding, selection of Judges and a performance Commission, as has been done by many of states in us, such performance commission. Should have the power to hear the complaints from any litigant against. The condue of Judge Lord Chancellor has such power. In 1986, Lord Hail Sham expressed support for the introduction of an Indepent Complaints Board to investigate facts and make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. Prior to the dismissal of an Judge. Judges with a class bias are misfits in a socialist republic. Some Judges with a communal bend of mind are on the Bench.

In the name of Independence, you cannot have judicial absolution and Tyranny. The three instrumentalities must harmoniously work the constitutions sense of Justice, Social, Economic and Political in to a reality.

Committees and Commissions are being set up as a play for inaction and dodging. 

Judiciary is proclaimed by all high and mighty as one of the pillars of good Governance and Democracy, but, successive Government has starved of the funds and where with all to improve the Justice Delivery System.