Adhoc and acting of Judges of Supreme Court

Adhoc and acting of Judges of Supreme Court

Acting Chief Justice of India
Acting Chief Justice of India

Acting Chief Justice of India

Article 126 says that when the office of the Chief Justice of India is vacant or when he is not in a position to perform his duties, they are performed by such other judge of the Supreme Court that the president may appoint.

Adhoc and acting Judges

Article 127 says that if there is no quorum of the Supreme court Judges to hold or continue any session of the court, the Chief Justice of India (CJI), with the previous consent of the President and in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, who is qualified to be a judges of the Supreme Court, to function as an adhoc judges of the Supreme Court.

While so attending as the Judge of the Supreme Court, he shall have all the Jurisdictions, powers and privileges and shall discharge the duties of a Judge of the Supreme Court.

Provisions for Retired Judges

Article 128 has the provision that retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges may be requested by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), with prior consent of the President to sit and function as the Judge of the Supreme Court.

Every such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the Jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a judge of that Court. His Consent is necessary for attendance as the acting judge.

See also  Funds and Budget in the Parliament

Removal of Judges

  • Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India lays down the procedure for removal of a Judge of Supreme Court which is applicable to the chief Justice as well. The removal of Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court is extremely difficult.
  • Supreme Courts Judge may be removed from his office 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 the total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of that house present and voting, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
  • Important constitutional issues as to the statues of a motion for the removal of a judge under the Act made pursuant to Article 124(5) of the Constitution and applicability of the doctrine of lapse to such a motion upon the dissolution of the Lok Sbaha together with the connected questions including the justifiability there of in a court of law arose in these rather unfortunate circumstances.
  • In pursuance of Article 124 (5), Parliament passed the Judges (inquiry) Act, 1968. The Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969, lays down the details of procedure for investigations and inquiry into the allegations against a Judge. If not less than 100 members of Lok Sbaha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha give a notice of a motion for the removal of a Judge on grounds of some definite allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity, the Speaker/Chairman of Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sbaha would decide the admissibility of the motion and if the motion is admitted, a committee would be appointed for holding the necessary investigations.
  • The judge against whom charges are made is provided with reasonable opportunity for defense. If the committee found the Judge not guilty of any misbehavior and not suffering from any incapacity, then the whole matter would be dropped forthwith. If, however, a verdict of guilty of misbehaviour or of incapacity was returned by the committee, the house would proceed to consider the motion.  If the motion was passed by majority of the total membership of each house and more than two thirds of those present and voting in either case, misbehaviour or incapacity of the judge shall be deemed to have been proved and an address shall be presented to the President during the same session of Parliament for the removal of the judge.    
See also  Details and types of Parliamentary Committees

Leave a Comment