Supreme Court: Abstention /= Support for Impeachment Motion The Supreme Court held that abstention from voting on an Impeachment Motion against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court cannot be interpreted as support ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Supreme Court: Abstention /= Support for Impeachment Motion
The Supreme Court held that abstention from voting on an Impeachment Motion against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court cannot be interpreted as support for the Motion under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the right to abstain is a valid expression of neutrality and does not imply backing the Motion. The decision highlighted that the Constitution requires a clear expression of opinion through voting for the removal of a judge, and assuming support through abstention would contradict Parliamentary sovereignty principles. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
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.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
