The Constitution of India
Article 121
Restriction on discussion in Parliament
No discussion 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.
Why this exists
The framers of the Constitution wanted to protect judicial independence by shielding judges from casual political criticism in Parliament, which could pressure them or damage public confidence in the judiciary. At the same time, they created a narrow, formal exception: Parliament can discuss a judge's conduct only when it is seriously considering removing that judge through the constitutional impeachment process outlined in Article 124. This balances judicial independence with accountability.
How courts read it
There is no major Supreme Court judgment directly interpreting Article 121 itself, as it primarily governs internal parliamentary procedure. However, courts and constitutional commentators have referenced it while discussing the broader framework of judicial independence and the separation of powers, especially in cases dealing with judicial accountability and the removal process under Article 124, such as the discussions during judge removal motions (e.g., against Justice V. Ramaswami and later Justice Soumitra Sen).
Common misconceptions
- Myth: MPs can criticize any judge's rulings or behavior during regular parliamentary debates.
Fact: Article 121 specifically bars such discussions unless they occur as part of a formal motion to remove the judge, protecting judicial independence. - Myth: This Article means judges are completely unaccountable to Parliament.
Fact: Judges can still be removed by Parliament, but only through the strict, formal impeachment process described in Article 124, not through casual debate.