Article 121 of Indian Constitution bars Parliament from discussing the conduct of Supreme Court or High Court judges unless a formal motion is made to the President seeking their removal. Article 121 protects judicial independence by preventing politically motivated criticism and ensures the judiciary remains separate and impartial from the legislative and executive branches. Explore other important Constitutional Articles.

Article 121 of Indian Constitution 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.

Note: “The information on Article 121 of Indian Constitution provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders.”

Download Free Article 121 of Indian Constitution PDF

Article 121 of Indian Constitution prohibits discussions in Parliament regarding the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts while they are performing their duties. It is to be noted that such discussions are allowed only when they are part of a formal motion to present an address to the President for the removal of a judge. The provision safeguards the independence of the judiciary by shielding it from undue influence or criticism by the legislative branch. It also states that any discussion about the conduct of judges is taken seriously and within the framework of a formal process aimed at their removal. The provision of Article 121 of Indian Constitution prevents frivolous or malicious attacks. The Constitution by enforcing these restrictions upholds the separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature.

Article 121 of Indian Constitution Significance

Article 121 of Indian Constitution under Part V aids in maintaining the integrity and autonomy of the judiciary by limiting parliamentary discussions on the conduct of Judges except in cases of removal. The provision ensures unity among the legislature and judiciary. It also ensures judicial responsibility.

• It prevents the Parliament from engaging in casual or politically motivated debates on the conduct of the Judge. Article 121 of Constitution protects the judiciary from legislative interference. It preserves autonomy.
• Article 121 of the Indian Constitution mandates that any concerns regarding the conduct of the Judges be considered through a structured process. It prevents unwarranted criticism and protects the integrity of judicial officers.
• By restricting arbitrary discussions on judges, Article 121 of Indian Constitution prevents the potential misuse of legislative platforms for personal or political vendettas against members of the judiciary.

Article 121 of Indian Constitution plays an important role in maintaining the delicate balance between parliamentary privilege and judicial independence. The following are some of the Landmark Judgements related to Article 121 of Constitution-

C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee

In C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, the Supreme Court highlighted that judges not only interpret laws but also shape them to align with the evolution of social and economic conditions, making constitutional ideals a reality. Judicial independence plays an important role in this and judges must be protected from undue pressure. Any discussion (Article 121 of Indian Constitution) regarding the conduct of the judges must be based on prior proof of misconduct established by law.

Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India

In the case of Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, the Supreme Court unanimously supported that the objective of Article 121 of Indian Constitution is to prevent public discussions on a judge’s conduct in the interest of maintaining judicial integrity, emphasizing its critical importance.

Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju v. Lok Sabha

In Justice (Retd.) Markandey Katju v. Lok Sabha, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s authority to pass resolutions on public comments made by a judge, affirming MPs’ freedom of speech in the House. However, Article 121 of Indian Constitution restricts discussions on judicial conduct in Parliament, except in cases of removal. The Court explained that the procedure of investigating and proving misconduct must happen outside Parliament which becomes involved only after misconduct is established. The Speaker, as a statutory authority, oversees the parliamentary process once a complaint is raised by MPs.

Conclusion

Article 121 of Indian Constitution preserves the independence and integrity of the judiciary. It restricts discussions on the conduct of judges to specific motions for their removal. The provision imposes restrictions on parliamentary debates but it allows for meaningful discussions on broader judicial matters.