Constitution of India
Article 218: Application of certain provisions relating to Supreme Court to High Courts
Part VI — The States (Chapter V — The High Courts in the States)
Article 218 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The provisions of clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 shall apply to a High Court as they apply to the Supreme Court, with references to the Supreme Court being read as references to the High Court. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. High Court judges can be removed ONLY by the same impeachment process applicable to Supreme Court judges. 2. Removal requires proven misbehaviour or incapacity. 3. Both Houses of Parliament must pass an address by special majority (majority of total membership + two-thirds of members present and voting). 4. The President issues the removal order after the Parliamentary address. 5. Parliament may enact laws regulating the procedure for such removal (currently: Judges Inquiry Act, 1968). KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Judicial Independence — uniform removal standards ensure no High Court judge can be arbitrarily removed by the executive, preserving security of tenure across both tiers of the higher judiciary.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Section 220 (High Courts) read with Federal Court removal provisions Original provision: Under the 1935 Act, High Court judges were appointed by His Majesty by warrant and could be removed by His Majesty on the ground of misbehaviour or infirmity, upon report by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. What India kept: The principle that High Court judges enjoy the same security of tenure as the highest court judges, requiring a rigorous removal process. 2. British Convention (Act of Settlement, 1701) — Security of judicial tenure ('during good behaviour') Original provision: English judges held office during good behaviour and could be removed only upon address of both Houses of Parliament. What India kept: The parliamentary address mechanism for judicial removal. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Democratic accountability via Parliament — Removal by elected Parliament replaced removal by the Crown on Privy Council advice, reflecting republican governance. 2. Unified removal standard — India equated High Court judges with Supreme Court judges for removal, unlike the 1935 Act where different mechanisms applied to Federal Court and High Court judges. 3. Special majority requirement — India added a stringent two-stage special majority (total membership + two-thirds present), far more demanding than simple parliamentary address under British practice.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 7 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE: Draft Article 194 (referred to clauses (4) and (5) of Draft Article 103, later renumbered Article 124) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. H.V. Kamath — Suggested that the President's removal order for High Court judges should be based on an address by the State Legislature, not Parliament. 2. Members opposing Kamath — Argued that vesting removal power in State Legislatures would compromise judicial independence and expose HC judges to local political pressures. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Centre vs. State control over HC judge removal — Kamath wanted State Legislatures to initiate removal; this was met with 'considerable opposition' and was NOT pursued. FINAL OUTCOME: No formal amendment was moved; Draft Article 194 was adopted as part of the Constitution without changes. At the revision stage, it was renumbered as Article 218. CONTEXT NOTE: The October 1947 first Draft Constitution (Constitutional Adviser's draft) had originally contained the removal provision for HC judges in clause 164(4) as a standalone clause. The Drafting Committee's February 1948 draft chose instead to cross-reference Article 103 (later 124) to avoid repetition.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) — Held that Art. 124(4) & (5) read with Art. 218 form a special constitutional scheme for dealing with judicial misconduct; prior consent of the CJI is needed before prosecuting a sitting HC or SC judge. 2. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991) — Upheld that removal of SC/HC judges is exclusively Parliament's domain under Art. 124(4) read with Art. 218; the judiciary cannot restrain a judge from functioning during pending inquiry, as that would amount to acting as a removal tribunal. 3. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — (Second Judges Case) Reaffirmed primacy of judiciary in appointments/transfers; implications extended to Art. 218 by reinforcing uniform standards of judicial independence across SC and HC. 4. In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 — (Third Judges Case) Clarified the collegium system for judicial appointments; equally applicable to HC judges through Art. 217 and indirectly supports the spirit of Art. 218 regarding uniform standards. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice J.S. Verma in K. Veeraswami (1991) — Dissented on the majority view, holding that HC/SC judges' misconduct was meant to be dealt with ONLY through the impeachment process under Arts. 124(4)/(5)/218 and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and that judges were not prosecutable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain (Constitutional Law of India) — Observed that the object of Article 218 is to secure the independence of High Courts by extending the same security of tenure to HC judges as is available to SC judges. 2. D.D. Basu (Commentary on the Constitution of India) — Noted that Article 218 ensures uniformity in judicial discipline, making the removal process identical for both tiers of the higher judiciary.