Impeachment Is Not a Tool of Dissent: A Constitutional Perspective on the Attempt Against Justice Swaminathan

In recent days, the legal community and the wider public have witnessed growing discussion around the filing of impeachment proceedings against Hon’ble Justice Swaminathan. Such developments warrant careful constitutional scrutiny, not emotional reactions. Impeachment of a judge is among the most serious mechanisms provided under the Constitution of India and must never be trivialised or misused as a response to judicial disagreement.

This moment calls for a principled examination of judicial independence, constitutional morality, and institutional restraint.

Impeachment Under the Indian Constitution: An Exceptional Remedy

The Constitution of India provides for impeachment of judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court under Articles 124(4) and 217, but the threshold is deliberately high. A judge may be removed only on proven grounds of:

Misbehaviour, or

Incapacity,

and that too after a rigorous, evidence-based parliamentary process.

Impeachment is not designed to be invoked because a judgment is unpopular, inconvenient, or politically uncomfortable. Judicial decisions are subject to appeal and review, not retribution.

Disagreement With Judgments Is Not Misconduct

In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, judicial disagreement is addressed through legal remedies, not institutional attacks.

Judges are expected to decide matters independently, guided solely by:

The Constitution,

Statutory law, and

Their judicial conscience.

When opposition to a judicial decision escalates to filing impeachment proceedings—without demonstrable, grave misconduct—it risks converting a constitutional safeguard into a pressure tactic. Such actions undermine not just an individual judge, but the credibility and fearlessness of the judiciary as a whole.

Judicial Independence: The Cornerstone of Democracy

Judicial independence is not a privilege of judges; it is a right of the citizens. A judiciary that functions under fear of impeachment for its decisions cannot serve as an effective guardian of constitutional rights.

If judges are threatened with impeachment merely for delivering reasoned decisions that displease certain interests, it creates a chilling effect—discouraging bold, impartial adjudication. This would be fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance.

The Real Misconduct Lies in the Misuse of Constitutional Processes

It must be stated with clarity and responsibility: Invoking impeachment without meeting constitutional standards of proven misconduct is itself a serious institutional impropriety.

Constitutional mechanisms demand maturity, restraint, and respect. Weaponising impeachment proceedings to counter judicial reasoning reflects a misunderstanding—or deliberate disregard—of constitutional ethics.

Strong democracies protect institutions even when outcomes are uncomfortable.

Conclusion: Institutions Must Be Defended, Not Intimidated

As members of the legal fraternity, it is our collective duty to safeguard the independence, dignity, and authority of the judiciary. Criticism of judgments is legitimate. Appeals are lawful. Debate is healthy.

But intimidation—direct or indirect—through premature or unjustified impeachment efforts is neither lawful nor democratic.

The Constitution endures not because institutions are flawless, but because they are protected from misuse.

Judicial independence must remain non-negotiable.