RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma
Case: RD Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma
Citation: AIR 1974 SC 1534
1. Court:
Supreme Court of India
2. Background and Facts:
RD Saxena was a practicing lawyer who filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking enforcement of fundamental rights.
The case involved the removal of a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Justice Balram Prasad Sharma).
The petition challenged the alleged misconduct and impropriety of the judge and sought his removal.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the judge was unfit to continue in office.
3. Legal Issues:
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to remove a High Court judge through writ proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Whether allegations of misconduct against a judge can be investigated and acted upon by the Supreme Court outside the constitutional procedure for removal of judges.
What is the procedure for removal of a High Court judge under the Constitution.
4. Constitutional Provisions Involved:
Article 124(4) and (5): Procedure for removal of Supreme Court judges.
Article 217(1): Appointment and conditions of High Court judges.
Article 218: Power of Parliament to regulate conditions of High Court judges.
Article 311: Protection against dismissal or removal from service without inquiry.
Article 32: Right to move Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
5. Supreme Court’s Observations and Holding:
The removal of a High Court judge is a constitutional process involving Parliament (a motion by either House and subsequent investigation).
The Supreme Court cannot remove a High Court judge directly through writ jurisdiction or suo moto proceedings.
Allegations against judges must be dealt with under the impeachment process as provided in the Constitution.
Judges hold office during good behavior, and removal can only be on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity.
The Court emphasized the independence of the judiciary and that removing judges is a delicate constitutional matter.
The petitioner cannot invoke Article 32 to bypass the constitutional procedure for removal.
6. Principles Established:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Separation of Powers | The judiciary, legislature, and executive have distinct roles. Removal of judges is a legislative function. |
| Limited Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 | Article 32 safeguards fundamental rights but does not extend to removal of judges. |
| Constitutional Procedure for Removal | Judges can only be removed by impeachment in Parliament on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity. |
| Judicial Independence | Protecting judges from arbitrary removal is essential for judicial independence. |
7. Significance of the Case:
Reaffirmed the constitutional process of removal of judges in India.
Maintained judicial independence by preventing executive or judicial overreach.
Clarified the scope of writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Ensured that complaints against judges are not trivialized or resolved outside constitutional framework.
8. Related Cases for Context:
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — on judicial independence and appointment of judges.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — on the independence of the judiciary.
Hegde v. State of Karnataka (1979) — dealing with jurisdiction of courts over judicial officers.
9. Conclusion:
The RD Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma case is a crucial judgment emphasizing that the removal of High Court judges is strictly governed by the constitutional procedure of impeachment and that the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 does not extend to direct removal of judges. This case safeguards the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial independence in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments