The move was announced by CPI(M) Member of Parliament Su. Venkatesan, who said INDIA bloc MPs were collecting signatures and intended to formally submit the memorandum to Parliament the following day. The step follows wide public debate and political uproar after a Madurai Bench order directed temple authorities to ensure that a lamp was lit at the deepathoon (pillar) adjacent to a dargah a judgment some parties labelled as judicial overreach.
Under Article 124(4) and Article 217 read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act and constitutional practice, impeachment of a High Court judge requires a formal motion signed by the requisite number of MPs: either 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. If accepted, the motion leads to an inquiry by a three-member committee, and subsequent removal requires a special majority in both Houses two-thirds of members present and voting plus an absolute majority of total membership. Historically, no judge has been successfully removed by impeachment in India.
Parliamentary procedures include initial scrutiny to ensure the motion’s compliance with rules and then reference to the Committee on Privileges and/or a Judges Inquiry Committee, depending on the nature of allegations. Only after a committee report finds the judge guilty of proven misbehaviour or incapacity do Houses take the final vote that can result in removal, followed by a Presidential order.
Allegations and political context
Opposition leaders framing the impeachment motion say the judge’s order interferes with secular and communal harmony and represents an abuse of judicial power. Supporters of the judge and some legal commentators contend that the order aimed to balance devotional practices at a contested site and was taken in a sensitive local context. The controversy has amplified broader debates about judicial accountability and the correct limits of judicial intervention in religious or local disputes.
Legal experts weigh in
Constitutional experts note that impeachment is a rare and grave remedy designed for serious misconduct, not mere errors of law or differences of opinion about judicial reasoning. Removal proceedings require clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of misbehaviour or incapacity. Critics of impeachment as a political tool warn that frequent resort to parliamentary removal risks undermining judicial independence, while proponents argue accountability mechanisms must be available for judicial excesses.
Next steps
If the INDIA bloc secures the required signatures and the motion is admitted by the Speaker, Parliament will decide whether to refer the matter to an inquiry committee. That phase can take months and would involve evidence collection and hearings. Any final removal vote would demand broad cross-party consensus in both Houses a high threshold that has kept the impeachment route largely unused in the past.
Readers seeking primary sources on parliamentary rules and past instances may consult the Lok Sabha website and archived coverage from national outlets. For official guidance on judge removal procedures, the Ministry of Law and Justice provides statutory and constitutional references.