https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199676 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. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Mar 2018 12:14:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199676 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199676