Article 211 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 211 of the Constitution of India
Title: Restriction on discussion in the Legislature
Bare Text of Article 211:
“No discussion shall take place in the Legislature of a State 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.”
Explanation:
Article 211 imposes a restriction on the freedom of speech of Members of the State Legislature. It prohibits them from:
Discussing the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court,
In the discharge of their judicial duties,
Unless the discussion is based on a proper motion for removal under the procedure laid down in the Constitution (i.e., under Article 124 or 217 read with Article 124(4)).
Purpose of Article 211:
Upholds the independence of the judiciary
Prevents politicization of judicial conduct
Ensures respect for judicial office and the separation of powers
This provision is parallel to Article 121, which applies the same restriction to the Parliament of India.
Key Principles:
| Principle | Description |
|---|---|
| Judicial Immunity | Legislators cannot raise allegations against Judges in House debates. |
| Only through impeachment motion | Judges can be discussed only when a removal motion is properly admitted. |
| Preserves dignity of judiciary | Avoids undue influence or defamation in public forums. |
Important Case Laws Related to Article 211:
1. In Re: Under Article 143, Constitution of India, AIR 1965 SC 745 (Keshav Singh's Case)
Background: The case involved a conflict between the judiciary and the U.P. Legislative Assembly.
Principle: It reinforced the limits on legislative privilege, and emphasized that judicial conduct cannot be discussed except under constitutional procedure (Article 211).
2. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626
Relevance: Though not directly under Article 211, the case emphasized parliamentary privilege boundaries and the immunity granted to judges, echoing the same principle that judicial independence must be protected from legislative overreach.
3. Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 699
Principle: The Supreme Court observed that while the removal of judges is constitutionally permissible, it must follow due process. Legislatures cannot debate judicial conduct except via motion of impeachment.
4. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248
Note: Though primarily an economic case, it emphasized the doctrine of separation of powers, of which Article 211 is a critical example protecting judicial independence from legislative intrusion.
Conclusion:
Article 211 is a constitutional safeguard to preserve the impartiality, dignity, and independence of the judiciary by restricting frivolous or politically motivated discussions on a judge’s conduct in the State Legislatures.
✅ Key Takeaway: Judges can only be discussed in the State Legislature under a formal removal process, not casually or politically.
RELATED Blog
0 comments