“The Doctrine of Impeachment: Balancing the power and responsibilities in Democracy”

Introduction:

Can the Democracy hold its saviors accountable without destroying them?No, right. The process by which the guardians of democracy are held accountable for misconductand can be removed from their position is called impeachment. In Legal Language, impeachment is the process by which the legislative body or any other legally constituted tribunal initiates charges against any public official for misconduct.

Impeachment tends to be confined to ministerial officials as the unique nature of their positions may place ministers beyond the reach of the law to prosecute, or their misconduct is not codified into law as an offense except through the unique expectations of their high office. Impeachment can be democracy’s ultimate tension because the process involves punishingpowerful people while saving institutionalstability.

Impeachment also brings some practical tensions to democracy because it aims atholding high-ranking officials accountable for their misconduct.Although, the Indian Constitution outlines the framework for the impeachment of the Judges of the High Court, the Supreme Court, and the President, not even a single casehas been recorded yet in history.

Key Words in the Blog:

Impeachment
Democracy
Constitutional impeachment
Presidential impeachment
Judicial impeachment

Tracing the roots of impeachment – Constitutional and historical context:

The word impeachment derives from the Latin word“impedier,” which means the idea of catching or ensnaring by the foot, and has analogues in the modern French verb “empecher,” which means to prevent. The concept of impeachment was brought into existence by the constitution makers from the British Laws.Impeachment can be said to be the proceeding instituted by a legislative body to address serious misconduct by a public official.

In Great Britain,the House of Commons serves as a prosecutor, and the House of Lords serves as a judge in an impeachment proceeding.In the federal government of the US, the House of Representatives institutes impeachment proceedings by authorizing a formal inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee, which may then recommend articles of impeachment for a vote by the full House.

If the articles are approved, a trial is held in the Senate, and conviction is obtained by a vote of at least two-thirds of the senators present. In Great Britain,conviction on an impeachment has resulted in fine and imprisonment and even in execution, whereas in the United States, the penalties extend no further than removal and disqualification from office.

In England, the termImpeachment”was introduced in the 14^th century and became a means of initiatingcriminal proceedings against Clamour, or Outcry. After the mid-15^th century, it fell out of use till the 17^thcentury when it was revived as a means by which the parliament could get rid of the unpopular ministers, usually favorites of the courts protected by the king.

The Doctrine and its Democratic Purpose: –

Impeachment as a doctrine involves a process by which a public official, such as a judge, can be removed from office for their misconduct, incapacity, ormalicious acts. In India, the impeachment process is governed by Article 124(4), (5), 217, 218 of the Constitution, including the Judges Inquiry Act, 1962.

The process requires the motion to be held in either house ofthe Parliament, supported bya minimum of 100 members of Parliamentin the Lok Sabha and 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The motion is then reviewed by the chairman or the speaker of the house by forming a special committee to review the allegations and the matter deeply.

If the committee finds sufficient grounds for impeachment, then the motion is submitted to the Parliament,where it needs to be approved by a two-thirds majority of bothhouses. Once the motion is approved in both houses, the speaker needs to pass an order for the Judges’ removal. This process underscores the importance of Judicial accountability and the need for a robust system to address misconduct in the Judiciary.

The dual functions of Impeachment:

1. Corrective

2. Preventive

Impeachment serves as a corrective mechanism by holding public officials accountable for their misconduct, thereby upholding the rule of law and integrity within the government. It ensures that those in power adhere to the constitution and ethical standards. On the other hand, it also serves as a preventive measure by deterring officials from committing misconduct before they can cause harm. By removing the individuals from the office for serious offences. It reinforces the principle that no one is above the law.

Articles defining Impeachment in the Indian Constitution: –

The Constitution Act 1971 gave India’s Constitution its first mention of impeachment.According to Article 61 of the Constitution, the President may be impeached and forced out of office before the end of his term. The Parliament has the authority to remove the President from office. Although the law of the land has established the procedure, impeachment trials have not yet been brought against any President.

For President Article 61:

Article 61 of the Indian Constitution states that the violation of the Constitution is the sole basis for impeachment of the President.

The Article does not clarify what exactly means by the violation of the Constitution, nor does it list the specific grounds, such as bribery, corruption, or gross misconduct. These are interpretative responsibilities but are not written as distinct constitutional grounds in Article 61.

For Judges Article 124 (4), 217, and 218:

Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution states that a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from office except by a Presidential order following an address from both houses of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Article 217 of the Indian Constitution governs the appointment, tenure, qualifications, and conditions of service of judges in the High Courts. It ensures the independence and integrity of the judiciary by mandating that judges are appointed by the President based on the recommendations of the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

Article 218 of the Indian Constitution extends certain provisions of Article 124, which pertains to the Supreme Court, to the High Courts. This means that the same procedural and administrative standards applicable to the Supreme Court are also applicable to the High Courts, ensuring parity in judicial accountability and independence.

Comparative Perspective: – India Vs U.S.A.

Although the idea of impeachment in India and the USA is adopted from Great Britain,they nevertheless differ from each other, both procedurally and substantially. In India, Impeachment itself results in the removal of the President from his office, while an impeachment is regarded as an indictment in the US. It is the first step towards removal, the second step being Conviction.

In the USA Any member of the House of Representatives can introduce impeachment resolution. The House Judicial Committee analyses the resolution, frames charges and passes it upon a simple majority. On the other hand, in India, Either of the Houses may prefer the impeachment charges provided such charges are signed by at least 1/4th members of the preferring House.

In the USA, Articles of Impeachment require a simple majority to pass, and upon such passing of the Articles, the President stands impeached. On the other hand, In India, The Charges preferred to require a special majority to pass, and upon such passing of the Charges, they are sent to the other House.

In the USA, the Articles are forwarded to the Senate trial, and the Senate Trials are headed by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. On the Other hand, in India,the other House investigates the charges preferred. Such an investigation is headed by the presiding officer of the House, i.e., Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha.

In the USA, Impeachment itself does not result in a removal, but is regarded as indictment. On the other hand, in India Impeachment itself results in removal of the president from the office.

In the USA, impeachment of the President is non-justiciable as per the Political Question Doctrine, as held in Nixon v. United States. On the other hand, in India No question on the justiciability of impeachment has arisen so far.

Case Studies on Impeachment: –

Justice V. Ramaswami’s impeachment attempt in India exemplifies political failure despite substantial evidence of misconduct. Accused of extravagant use of public funds, being the Chief Justice of Haryana & Punjab H.C.,an inquiry committee found him guilty on 11 of 14 charges in 1992. However, the Lok Sabha motion failed in May 1993 (196 votes short of the required two-thirds majority; 108 Congress MPs abstained on party whip). Ramaswami retired amid controversy, highlighting how party politics can override evidence in India’s stringent impeachment process under Article 124(4).

Bill Clinton’s 1998 U.S. impeachment represents a legal success for Republicans but political failure overall. Stemming from the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit and Monica Lewinsky affair, Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s report alleged perjury and obstruction of justice during Clinton’s grand jury testimony. The House impeached him on December 19, 1998 (perjury: 228-206; obstruction: 221-212), marking only the second presidential impeachment. The Senate acquitted him on February 12, 1999 (perjury: 45-55; obstruction: 50-50, short of two-thirds), as public approval remained high (~60%) and bipartisan support lacked. Clinton completed his term, showing impeachment’s partisan limits.

Conclusion: –

Impeachment remainsa very powerful tool in a democracy; it can be said as a mechanism to enforce responsibility on the powerful while safeguarding institutional stability. Although noJudge has been removed through the process of impeachment in India to date, Impeachment holds an important place in the constitution. The path forward lies in evolution. Clearer definitions of misconduct, independent preliminary inquiries, and depoliticized processes can strengthen this doctrine without compromising its constitutional role.

Ultimately, impeachment affirms a timeless truth: power derives from the people and returns to them when abused. In balancing authority with responsibility, it remains democracy’s most vital self-correction, safeguarding the republic against its own guardians.