jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
informed so as to enable them to get assistance and usual	courtesies.	6. Only those members of the Parliament who are members of
the Group of at least six months’ standing at the time of the	composition of the delegation, may be included in the Indian	Parliamentary delegations to foreign countries.
7. An uninterrupted flow of information to members regarding	the activities of the Group is maintained through the IPG	Newsletter brought out every quarter. It is sent regularly to
all members of the Group, including associate members.	8. As per decision of the Group, an award of Outstanding	Parliamentarian was instituted in the year 1995 to be given
annually. A committee of five persons, constituted by the	Speaker of the Lok Sabha, invites and finalises the	nomination for the award.
9. To encourage bilateral relations, the Group constitutes	Parliamentary Friendship Groups with other countries in the	Parliament.6 The aims and objectives of the Friendship
Group are to maintain political, social and cultural contacts	between the two countries and to assist in exchanges of	information and experiences on issues relating to
THE GROUP AND IPU7	The IPU is an international organisation of the parliaments of	sovereign states. At present, the IPU consists of 153 parliaments
of sovereign nations. Its aim is to work for peace and cooperation	among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative	institutions. It fosters contacts, coordination and the exchange of
experience among parliaments and parliamentarians of all	member countries and contributes to better knowledge of the	working of representative institutions. It also expresses its views
on all burning questions of international importance for necessary	effective implementation of parliamentary actions and suggests	avenues for improving the working standard and capacity of
international institutions.	The main advantages of membership of the Group, insofar as	its functions as the National Group of the IPU are concerned, are
as follows:	1. It helps members of Indian Parliamentary delegations to	develop contacts with the parliamentarians of the member
countries of the IPU.	2. The events provide an opportunity to study and understand	contemporary changes/reforms taking place in various
countries of the world.	3. It provides facilities to meet parliamentarians in different	countries during tours in abroad or in India when visiting
Parliamentarians are here.	4. The members of the Group are eligible to visit foreign	countries as members of the Indian Parliamentary
delegations to Inter-Parliamentary Conferences.	In the recent past, members of the Group have been holding	various positions in the IPU bodies, namely, office bearers in
different committees of the IPU, Rapporteurs, Chairman of	Drafting Committees, etc. and by virtue of the same, the Group	has been successful in putting forward effectively the view point of
THE GROUP AND CPA8	The CPA is an association of about 17000 Commonwealth	Parliamentarians spread over 175 National, State, Provincial and
Territorial Parliaments. Its aims are to promote knowledge and	understanding of the constitutional, legislative, economic, social	and cultural systems within a parliamentary democratic framework
with particular reference to the countries of the Commonwealth of	Nations and to countries having close historical and parliamentary	associations with it. Its mission is to promote the advancement of
parliamentary democracy by enhancing knowledge and	understanding of democratic governance and by building an	informed parliamentary community able to deepen the
Commonwealth’s democratic commitment and to further co-	operation among its parliaments and legislatures.	The main advantages of membership of the Group, insofar as
its functions as the main branch of the CPA in India are	concerned, are as follows:	1. Conferences and Seminars: Membership provides an
opportunity for participation in the plenary and regional	conferences, seminars, visits and exchanges of delegations.	2. Publications: All members of the Group are entitled to
receive, free of charge, ‘The Parliamentarian’ quarterly and	the newsletter, ‘First Reading’, every second month.9	3. Information: The Parliamentary Information and Reference
Centre of the CPA Secretariat provides information to	members on parliamentary, constitutional and	Commonwealth matters.
4. Introductions: The CPA branches readily assist in	arranging introductions for members visiting other	jurisdictions.
5. Parliamentary Facilities: Members visiting other	Commonwealth countries are normally accorded	parliamentary courtesies, especially access to debates and
local members.	6. Travel Facilities: Some branches provide for a designated	number of their members annually to undertake study tours
of Commonwealth and other countries to compare political	and procedural developments. Other branches arrange ad	hoc visits.
NOTES AND REFERENCES	1. M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, Practice and Procedure	of Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Sixth Edition,
2009, p. 1160.	2. Ibid.	3. Hereafter referred to as ‘the Group’.
4. The concerned motion was adopted on August 16,	1948.	5. A member or ex-member of Parliament can become a
life member of the Group on payment of a fixed life	subscription.	6. Each Friendship Group consists of 22 sitting members
of Parliament (15 from the Lok Sabha and 7 from the	Rajya Sabha) in proportion to the strength of parties in	the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The Speaker of
the Lok Sabha appoints the President and two Vice-	Presidents (one from each House) of the Friendship	Group.
7. Hand Book for Members of Lok Sabha, Fifteenth	Edition, 2009, pp. 207–208.	8. Ibid, pp. 208–209.
26 Supreme Court	U	nlike the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution
has established an integrated judicial system with the	Supreme Court at thetop and the high courts below it.	Under a high court (and below the state level), there is a hierarchy
of subordinate courts, that is, district courts and other lower	courts. This single system of courts, adopted from the	Government of India Act of 1935, enforces both Central laws as
well as the state laws. In USA, on the other hand, the federal laws	are enforced by the federal judiciary and the state laws are	enforced by the state judiciary. There is thus a double system of
courts in USA–one for the centre and the other for the states. To	sum up, India, although a federal country like the USA, has a	unified judiciary and one system of fundamental law and justice.
The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28,	1950. It succeeded the Federal Court of India, established under	the Government of India Act of 1935. However, the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court is greater than that of its predecessor. This is	because, the Supreme Court has replaced the British Privy	Council as the highest court of appeal.1
Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution deal with the	organisation, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures and	so on of the Supreme Court. The Parliament is also authorised to
COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT	At present, the Supreme Court consists of thirty-four judges (one	chief justice and thirty three other judges). In 2019, the centre
notified an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges from	thirty-one to thirty-four, including the Chief Justice of India. This	followed the enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges)
Amendment Act, 2019. Originally, the strength of the Supreme	Court was fixed at eight (one chief justice and seven other	judges). The Parliament has increased this number of other
judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to	seventeen in 1977, to twenty-five in 1986, to thirty in 2008 and to	thirty-three in 2019.
Appointment of Judges	The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president.	The chief justice is appointed by the president after consultation
with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he	deems necessary. The other judges are appointed by president	after consultation with the chief justice and such other judges of
the Supreme Court and the high courts as he deems necessary.	The consultation with the chief justice is obligatory in the case of	appointment of a judge other than Chief justice.
Controversy over Consultation	The Supreme Court has given different interpretation of the word	‘consultation’ in the above provision. In the First Judges case
(1982), the Court held that consultation does not mean	concurrence and it only implies exchange of views. But, in the	Second Judges case (1993), the Court reversed its earlier ruling
and changed the meaning of the word consultation to	concurrence. Hence, it ruled that the advice tendered by the Chief	Justice of India is binding on the President in the matters of
appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court. But, the Chief	Justice would tender his advice on the matter after consulting two	of his seniormost colleagues. Similarly, in the Third Judges case2
adopted by the Chief justice of India requires ‘consultation of	plurality judges’. The sole opinion of the chief justice of India does	not constitute the consultation process. He should consult a
collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court and	even if two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not send	the recommendation to the government. The court held that the
recommendation made by the chief justice of India without	complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation	process are not binding on the government.
The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the	National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have	replaced the collegium system of appointing judges to the
Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the	National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in	2015, the Supreme Court has declared both the 99th
Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act as	unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the earlier collegium	system became operative again. This verdict was delivered by the
Supreme Court in the Fourth Judges case2a (2015). The court	opined that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would affect the	independence of the judiciary.
Appointment of Chief	Justice From 1950 to 1973, the practice has been to appoint the	seniormost judge of the Supreme Court as the chief justice of
India. This established convention was violated in 1973 when A.N.	Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by superseding	three senior judges.3 Again in 1977, M.U. Beg was appointed as
the chief justice of India by superseding the then senior-most	judge.4 This discretion of the government was curtailed by the	Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), in which the
Supreme Court ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme	Court should alone be appointed to the office of the chief justice of	India.
QUALIFICATIONS, OATH AND SALARIES	Qualifications of Judges	A person to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court should
have the following qualifications:	1. He should be a citizen of India.	2. (a) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high
courts in succession) for five years; or (b) He should have	been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in	succession) for ten years; or (c) He should be a
distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.	From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not	prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the
Supreme Court.	Oath or Affirmation	A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, before
entering upon his Office, has to make and subscribe an oath or	affirmation before the President, or some person appointed by him	for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of the Supreme Court
swears:	1. to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;	2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;
3. to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge	and judgement perform the duties of the Office without fear	or favour, affection or ill-will; and
4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.	Salaries and Allowances	The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the
judges of the Supreme Court are determined from time to time by	the Parliament. They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after	their appointment except during a financial emergency. In 2018,
the salary of the chief justice was increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹2.80	lakh per month and that of a judge from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh per	month6. They are also paid sumptuary allowance and provided
with free accommodation and other facilities like medical, car,	telephone, etc.	The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50 per cent
TENURE AND REMOVAL	Tenure of Judges	The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of the
Supreme Court. However, it makes the following three provisions	in this regard:	1. He holds office until he attains the age of 65 years. Any
question regarding his age is to be determined by such	authority and in such manner as provided by Parliament.	2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.
3. He can be removed from his office by the President on the	recommendation of the Parliament.	Removal of Judges
A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his Office by	an order of the president. The President can issue the removal	order only after an address by Parliament has been presented to
him in the same session for such removal.5 The address must be	supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (ie, a	majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of
not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and	voting). The grounds of removal are two–proved misbehaviour or	incapacity.
The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating	to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the process of	impeachment:
1. A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of	Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is	to be given to the Speaker/ Chairman.
2. The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to	admit it.	3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairman is to constitute
a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.	4. The committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a	judge of the Supreme Court, (b) a chief justice of a high
5. If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehaviour	or suffering from an incapacity, the House can take up the	consideration of the motion.
6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by	special majority, an address is presented to the president for	removal of the judge.
7. Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.	It is interesting to know that no judge of the Supreme Court has	been impeached so far. The first case of impeachment is that of
Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court (1991–1993).	Though the enquiry Committee found him guilty of misbehaviour,	he could not be removed as the impeachment motion was
ACTING, ADHOC AND RETIRED JUDGES	Acting Chief Justice	The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an
acting Chief Justice of India when:	1. the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant; or	2. the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent; or
3. the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of	his office.	Ad hoc Judge
When there is a lack of quorum of the permanent judges to hold or	continue any session of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of	India can appoint a judge of a High Court as an ad hoc judge of
the Supreme Court for a temporary period. He can do so only	after consultation with the chief justice of the High Court	concerned and with the previous consent of the president. The

informed so as to enable them to get assistance and usual

courtesies.

6. Only those members of the Parliament who are members of

the Group of at least six months’ standing at the time of the

composition of the delegation, may be included in the Indian

Parliamentary delegations to foreign countries.

7. An uninterrupted flow of information to members regarding

the activities of the Group is maintained through the IPG

Newsletter brought out every quarter. It is sent regularly to

all members of the Group, including associate members.

8. As per decision of the Group, an award of Outstanding

Parliamentarian was instituted in the year 1995 to be given

annually. A committee of five persons, constituted by the

Speaker of the Lok Sabha, invites and finalises the

nomination for the award.

9. To encourage bilateral relations, the Group constitutes

Parliamentary Friendship Groups with other countries in the

Parliament.6 The aims and objectives of the Friendship

Group are to maintain political, social and cultural contacts

between the two countries and to assist in exchanges of

information and experiences on issues relating to

THE GROUP AND IPU7

The IPU is an international organisation of the parliaments of

sovereign states. At present, the IPU consists of 153 parliaments

of sovereign nations. Its aim is to work for peace and cooperation

among peoples and for the firm establishment of representative

institutions. It fosters contacts, coordination and the exchange of

experience among parliaments and parliamentarians of all

member countries and contributes to better knowledge of the

working of representative institutions. It also expresses its views

on all burning questions of international importance for necessary

effective implementation of parliamentary actions and suggests

avenues for improving the working standard and capacity of

international institutions.

The main advantages of membership of the Group, insofar as

its functions as the National Group of the IPU are concerned, are

as follows:

1. It helps members of Indian Parliamentary delegations to

develop contacts with the parliamentarians of the member

countries of the IPU.

2. The events provide an opportunity to study and understand

contemporary changes/reforms taking place in various

countries of the world.

3. It provides facilities to meet parliamentarians in different

countries during tours in abroad or in India when visiting

Parliamentarians are here.

4. The members of the Group are eligible to visit foreign

countries as members of the Indian Parliamentary

delegations to Inter-Parliamentary Conferences.

In the recent past, members of the Group have been holding

various positions in the IPU bodies, namely, office bearers in

different committees of the IPU, Rapporteurs, Chairman of

Drafting Committees, etc. and by virtue of the same, the Group

has been successful in putting forward effectively the view point of

THE GROUP AND CPA8

The CPA is an association of about 17000 Commonwealth

Parliamentarians spread over 175 National, State, Provincial and

Territorial Parliaments. Its aims are to promote knowledge and

understanding of the constitutional, legislative, economic, social

and cultural systems within a parliamentary democratic framework

with particular reference to the countries of the Commonwealth of

Nations and to countries having close historical and parliamentary

associations with it. Its mission is to promote the advancement of

parliamentary democracy by enhancing knowledge and

understanding of democratic governance and by building an

informed parliamentary community able to deepen the

Commonwealth’s democratic commitment and to further co-

operation among its parliaments and legislatures.

The main advantages of membership of the Group, insofar as

its functions as the main branch of the CPA in India are

concerned, are as follows:

1. Conferences and Seminars: Membership provides an

opportunity for participation in the plenary and regional

conferences, seminars, visits and exchanges of delegations.

2. Publications: All members of the Group are entitled to

receive, free of charge, ‘The Parliamentarian’ quarterly and

the newsletter, ‘First Reading’, every second month.9

3. Information: The Parliamentary Information and Reference

Centre of the CPA Secretariat provides information to

members on parliamentary, constitutional and

Commonwealth matters.

4. Introductions: The CPA branches readily assist in

arranging introductions for members visiting other

jurisdictions.

5. Parliamentary Facilities: Members visiting other

Commonwealth countries are normally accorded

parliamentary courtesies, especially access to debates and

local members.

6. Travel Facilities: Some branches provide for a designated

number of their members annually to undertake study tours

of Commonwealth and other countries to compare political

and procedural developments. Other branches arrange ad

hoc visits.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher, Practice and Procedure

of Parliament, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Sixth Edition,

2009, p. 1160.

2. Ibid.

3. Hereafter referred to as ‘the Group’.

4. The concerned motion was adopted on August 16,

1948.

5. A member or ex-member of Parliament can become a

life member of the Group on payment of a fixed life

subscription.

6. Each Friendship Group consists of 22 sitting members

of Parliament (15 from the Lok Sabha and 7 from the

Rajya Sabha) in proportion to the strength of parties in

the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. The Speaker of

the Lok Sabha appoints the President and two Vice-

Presidents (one from each House) of the Friendship

Group.

7. Hand Book for Members of Lok Sabha, Fifteenth

Edition, 2009, pp. 207–208.

8. Ibid, pp. 208–209.

26 Supreme Court

U

nlike the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution

has established an integrated judicial system with the

Supreme Court at thetop and the high courts below it.

Under a high court (and below the state level), there is a hierarchy

of subordinate courts, that is, district courts and other lower

courts. This single system of courts, adopted from the

Government of India Act of 1935, enforces both Central laws as

well as the state laws. In USA, on the other hand, the federal laws

are enforced by the federal judiciary and the state laws are

enforced by the state judiciary. There is thus a double system of

courts in USA–one for the centre and the other for the states. To

sum up, India, although a federal country like the USA, has a

unified judiciary and one system of fundamental law and justice.

The Supreme Court of India was inaugurated on January 28,

1950. It succeeded the Federal Court of India, established under

the Government of India Act of 1935. However, the jurisdiction of

the Supreme Court is greater than that of its predecessor. This is

because, the Supreme Court has replaced the British Privy

Council as the highest court of appeal.1

Articles 124 to 147 in Part V of the Constitution deal with the

organisation, independence, jurisdiction, powers, procedures and

so on of the Supreme Court. The Parliament is also authorised to

COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT

At present, the Supreme Court consists of thirty-four judges (one

chief justice and thirty three other judges). In 2019, the centre

notified an increase in the number of Supreme Court judges from

thirty-one to thirty-four, including the Chief Justice of India. This

followed the enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges)

Amendment Act, 2019. Originally, the strength of the Supreme

Court was fixed at eight (one chief justice and seven other

judges). The Parliament has increased this number of other

judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to

seventeen in 1977, to twenty-five in 1986, to thirty in 2008 and to

thirty-three in 2019.

Appointment of Judges

The judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president.

The chief justice is appointed by the president after consultation

with such judges of the Supreme Court and high courts as he

deems necessary. The other judges are appointed by president

after consultation with the chief justice and such other judges of

the Supreme Court and the high courts as he deems necessary.

The consultation with the chief justice is obligatory in the case of

appointment of a judge other than Chief justice.

Controversy over Consultation

The Supreme Court has given different interpretation of the word

‘consultation’ in the above provision. In the First Judges case

(1982), the Court held that consultation does not mean

concurrence and it only implies exchange of views. But, in the

Second Judges case (1993), the Court reversed its earlier ruling

and changed the meaning of the word consultation to

concurrence. Hence, it ruled that the advice tendered by the Chief

Justice of India is binding on the President in the matters of

appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court. But, the Chief

Justice would tender his advice on the matter after consulting two

of his seniormost colleagues. Similarly, in the Third Judges case2

adopted by the Chief justice of India requires ‘consultation of

plurality judges’. The sole opinion of the chief justice of India does

not constitute the consultation process. He should consult a

collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court and

even if two judges give an adverse opinion, he should not send

the recommendation to the government. The court held that the

recommendation made by the chief justice of India without

complying with the norms and requirements of the consultation

process are not binding on the government.

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2014 and the

National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 have

replaced the collegium system of appointing judges to the

Supreme Court and High Courts with a new body called the

National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). However, in

2015, the Supreme Court has declared both the 99th

Constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act as

unconstitutional and void. Consequently, the earlier collegium

system became operative again. This verdict was delivered by the

Supreme Court in the Fourth Judges case2a (2015). The court

opined that the new system (i.e., NJAC) would affect the

independence of the judiciary.

Appointment of Chief

Justice From 1950 to 1973, the practice has been to appoint the

seniormost judge of the Supreme Court as the chief justice of

India. This established convention was violated in 1973 when A.N.

Ray was appointed as the Chief Justice of India by superseding

three senior judges.3 Again in 1977, M.U. Beg was appointed as

the chief justice of India by superseding the then senior-most

judge.4 This discretion of the government was curtailed by the

Supreme Court in the Second Judges Case (1993), in which the

Supreme Court ruled that the seniormost judge of the Supreme

Court should alone be appointed to the office of the chief justice of

India.

QUALIFICATIONS, OATH AND SALARIES

Qualifications of Judges

A person to be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court should

have the following qualifications:

1. He should be a citizen of India.

2. (a) He should have been a judge of a High Court (or high

courts in succession) for five years; or (b) He should have

been an advocate of a High Court (or High Courts in

succession) for ten years; or (c) He should be a

distinguished jurist in the opinion of the president.

From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has not

prescribed a minimum age for appointment as a judge of the

Supreme Court.

Oath or Affirmation

A person appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court, before

entering upon his Office, has to make and subscribe an oath or

affirmation before the President, or some person appointed by him

for this purpose. In his oath, a judge of the Supreme Court

swears:

1. to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India;

2. to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India;

3. to duly and faithfully and to the best of his ability, knowledge

and judgement perform the duties of the Office without fear

or favour, affection or ill-will; and

4. to uphold the Constitution and the laws.

Salaries and Allowances

The salaries, allowances, privileges, leave and pension of the

judges of the Supreme Court are determined from time to time by

the Parliament. They cannot be varied to their disadvantage after

their appointment except during a financial emergency. In 2018,

the salary of the chief justice was increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹2.80

lakh per month and that of a judge from ₹90,000 to ₹2.50 lakh per

month6. They are also paid sumptuary allowance and provided

with free accommodation and other facilities like medical, car,

telephone, etc.

The retired chief justice and judges are entitled to 50 per cent

TENURE AND REMOVAL

Tenure of Judges

The Constitution has not fixed the tenure of a judge of the

Supreme Court. However, it makes the following three provisions

in this regard:

1. He holds office until he attains the age of 65 years. Any

question regarding his age is to be determined by such

authority and in such manner as provided by Parliament.

2. He can resign his office by writing to the president.

3. He can be removed from his office by the President on the

recommendation of the Parliament.

Removal of Judges

A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from his Office by

an order of the president. The President can issue the removal

order only after an address by Parliament has been presented to

him in the same session for such removal.5 The address must be

supported by a special majority of each House of Parliament (ie, a

majority of the total membership of that House and a majority of

not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and

voting). The grounds of removal are two–proved misbehaviour or

incapacity.

The Judges Enquiry Act (1968) regulates the procedure relating

to the removal of a judge of the Supreme Court by the process of

impeachment:

1. A removal motion signed by 100 members (in the case of

Lok Sabha) or 50 members (in the case of Rajya Sabha) is

to be given to the Speaker/ Chairman.

2. The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to

admit it.

3. If it is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairman is to constitute

a three-member committee to investigate into the charges.

4. The committee should consist of (a) the chief justice or a

judge of the Supreme Court, (b) a chief justice of a high

5. If the committee finds the judge to be guilty of misbehaviour

or suffering from an incapacity, the House can take up the

consideration of the motion.

6. After the motion is passed by each House of Parliament by

special majority, an address is presented to the president for

removal of the judge.

7. Finally, the president passes an order removing the judge.

It is interesting to know that no judge of the Supreme Court has

been impeached so far. The first case of impeachment is that of

Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court (1991–1993).

Though the enquiry Committee found him guilty of misbehaviour,

he could not be removed as the impeachment motion was

ACTING, ADHOC AND RETIRED JUDGES

Acting Chief Justice

The President can appoint a judge of the Supreme Court as an

acting Chief Justice of India when:

1. the office of Chief Justice of India is vacant; or

2. the Chief Justice of India is temporarily absent; or

3. the Chief Justice of India is unable to perform the duties of

his office.

Ad hoc Judge

When there is a lack of quorum of the permanent judges to hold or

continue any session of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of

India can appoint a judge of a High Court as an ad hoc judge of

the Supreme Court for a temporary period. He can do so only

after consultation with the chief justice of the High Court

concerned and with the previous consent of the president. The