Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes 'incapacity and proved misbehaviour' of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is option C (statements 3 and 4 only).
**Statement 1 is incorrect:** The Speaker/Chairman may admit the motion or refuse to admit it.[2] This clearly shows that the Speaker has the discretionary power to reject a removal motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
**Statement 2 is incorrect:** The only grounds upon which such removal may take place are: (1) "proved misbehaviour" and (2) "incapacity". In Article 124(4) of the Constitution, "misbehaviour" means wrong conduct or improper conduct.[3] While the Constitution mentions these grounds, it does not provide detailed definitions of what constitutes incapacity and proved misbehaviour.
**Statement 3 is correct:** 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] The Act provides the detailed procedural framework for the impeachment process.
**Statement 4 is correct:** 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)[1], which accurately describes the voting requirement for removal.
Sources- [1] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > TENURE AND REMOVAL > p. 287
- [2] Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity. 7th ed., McGraw Hill. > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > TENURE AND REMOVAL > p. 287
- [3] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 342
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Guest previewThis is a classic 'Laxmikanth Line-by-Line' verification question. It tests the specific boundary between what is written in the Constitution (Article 124) versus what is delegated to Parliament (Judges Inquiry Act, 1968). The question specifically targets the 'Definition Trap' and the 'Speaker's Discretion'—two favorite areas for the examiner to plant falsehoods.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, does the Speaker of the Lok Sabha have authority to reject or refuse to admit a motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India?
- Statement 2: Does the Constitution of India itself define or give detailed definitions of "incapacity" and "proved misbehaviour" for removal of Judges of the Supreme Court of India?
- Statement 3: Does the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 set out the detailed procedure for inquiry and impeachment/removal of Judges of the Supreme Court of India?
- Statement 4: For removal of a Supreme Court Judge in India, does the Constitution require each House of Parliament to pass the motion by a majority of the total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting?
- Specifically addresses removal procedure for Supreme Court judges under the Judges Enquiry Act.
- Explicitly indicates a removal motion is to be given to the Speaker/Chairman and that the Speaker/Chairman may admit or refuse to admit it.
- Repeats the procedure for Supreme Court impeachment under the Judges Enquiry Act.
- Affirms the Speaker/Chairman has the option to admit or refuse a removal motion.
- Describes the same admission/refusal role for Speaker/Chairman in the context of High Court judges.
- Notes that the High Court procedure is the same as for the Supreme Court, linking the Speaker's role to Supreme Court impeachments as well.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.