9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of Article 124(4) of the Constitution regarding the Motion of Impeachment against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.
Summary: The petitioner, a practicing advocate, sought a declaration that abstention from voting on an Impeachment Motion should be deemed as support for the Motion, based on the argument that silence or acquiescence implies acceptance. The petitioner suggested that since the Parliament exercises a judicial function during impeachment, abstaining members should be considered to have supported the Motion. Article 124(4) outlines the procedure for removing a Supreme Court judge, requiring a two-thirds majority of members present and voting in both Houses of Parliament. The process involves a blend of political and judicial elements, with the actual removal being a judicial act after inquiry and investigation. The right to vote includes the right to abstain, which is a valid expression of neutrality and not support for the Motion. The language and purpose of Article 124(4) do not allow for abstention to be construed as support for the Motion. The Constitution mandates a clear expression of opinion through voting for the removal of a judge based on misbehavior or incapacity. Therefore, assuming support based on abstention would contradict the explicit provisions and principles of Parliamentary sovereignty. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that abstention from voting cannot be deemed as support for an Impeachment Motion under Article 124(4) of the Constitution.
|
