Article 121 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 121 of the Constitution of India addresses the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary, particularly with respect to judicial independence.
🏛️ Text of Article 121 – Restriction on discussion in Parliament
“No discussions shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge as hereinafter provided.”
âś… Key Features of Article 121
Judicial Immunity from Parliamentary Criticism:
Parliament cannot discuss the conduct of a judge except in cases where the judge's removal (impeachment) is being formally considered under Article 124(4) or Article 217.
Protection of Judicial Independence:
Prevents misuse of parliamentary privilege to attack or malign judges, preserving the independence of the judiciary.
Procedure for Removal:
Discussion can happen only through a formal motion under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, in line with the Constitution.
⚖️ Case Law Related to Article 121
1. Keshav Singh's Case (Special Reference No. 1 of 1964)
Facts: Keshav Singh was committed to prison by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly for contempt. The issue arose whether the judiciary had the right to interfere with legislative privilege.
Significance: The Supreme Court emphasized the separation of powers and said judicial conduct is outside legislative discussion, reinforcing Article 121. However, it also balanced the powers by recognizing constitutional limits of privilege.
2. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1991) 4 SCC 699
Facts: A PIL challenged the constitutional validity of the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 1968, and sought to make the process more transparent.
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld judicial independence and reiterated that only the specified procedure in the Constitution and relevant laws can be used to discuss judges’ conduct—as under Article 121.
3. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
Facts: Related to the election of Indira Gandhi being declared void by the Allahabad High Court.
Significance: Though not directly about Article 121, it reiterated the basic structure doctrine and judicial independence, indicating why the judiciary must be insulated from political pressures, including parliamentary attacks.
đź“ť Conclusion
Article 121 of the Indian Constitution ensures that Parliament cannot engage in free-wheeling debates or criticisms regarding a judge’s conduct unless it is part of the constitutional process for removal. It serves as a cornerstone for judicial independence and safeguards judges from political retaliation or pressure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments