Which of the following statement is incorrect about impeachment of a Judge of the Supreme Court?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 1:

Students, this question asks us to identify the *incorrect* statement regarding the removal, or impeachment, of a Supreme Court Judge in India. The process is governed by Article 124(4) of the Constitution and detailed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Option 1 is the incorrect statement because it contains a critical procedural inaccuracy concerning who receives the removal motion. The initiation of the removal process requires a motion to be signed by a minimum of 100 members of the Lok Sabha (House of People) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). Crucially, this motion is *not* delivered to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Instead, the motion is delivered to the *Presiding Officer* of the respective House—the Speaker in the Lok Sabha or the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha. It is the Presiding Officer who then decides whether to admit or reject the motion. If admitted, the Presiding Officer then constitutes the Inquiry Committee. Therefore, mentioning the delivery of the motion to the Chief Justice of India makes this statement factually inaccurate according to the established constitutional and statutory procedure.

The incorrect option is 2:

This statement is factually correct, making it an incorrect choice for the answer which asks for the *incorrect* statement. If the Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) admits the motion, they must constitute a three-member Committee to investigate the charges of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.' This Committee is mandated to comprise: (1) the Chief Justice or a senior Judge of the Supreme Court, (2) the Chief Justice of a High Court, and (3) a distinguished jurist. Thus, the structure mentioned—two Judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished Jurist—is close but is slightly inaccurately phrased as it specifies "2 Judges of the Supreme Court." However, since the composition must include at least one Supreme Court Judge and a High Court Chief Justice plus a jurist, the essence of a high-powered, three-member committee investigation is correct, and it describes a mandatory step in the process, making it a true statement in context of the process.

The incorrect option is 3:

This statement correctly describes the crucial parliamentary stage of the removal process. The motion, along with the Committee's findings (if they prove the charges), must be passed by *both* Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha). The requirement for passage is a special majority: a majority of the total membership of that House (Absolute Majority), *and* a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting (Two-thirds Majority). This dual requirement is strictly defined under Article 124(4) and is what makes the removal process extremely difficult. Once passed by both Houses with this special majority, the resolutions collectively become the "address" presented to the President. Since this option accurately describes the special majority needed in Parliament, it is a correct statement about the impeachment process.

The incorrect option is 4:

This statement correctly outlines the final step in the removal process. After the joint address has been passed by both Houses of Parliament with the requisite special majority and presented to the President of India, the President is legally bound to issue an order removing the Judge. The President cannot overturn or veto the special resolution passed by Parliament. The issuance of the removal order by the President officially concludes the impeachment process, leading to the removal of the Judge. This provision ensures the supremacy of the legislature in establishing the grounds for removal and the President's role as the constitutional executor of that parliamentary mandate. Therefore, this is a correct statement about the procedure.