Actual Article
Article 211: Restriction on discussion in the Legislature
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 provided in clause (4) of Article 124 or clause (5) of Article 217.
UPSC Notes for Article 211
Explanation:
- Restriction on Discussions: Article 211 places a specific restriction on the types of discussions that can occur within state legislatures, particularly concerning the conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. It ensures that discussions regarding the conduct of judges in the performance of their duties are limited to serious contexts involving potential judicial removal processes.
- Protection of Judicial Independence: By restricting discussions on judicial conduct to only those linked to formal removal proceedings, the article helps to protect the independence of the judiciary. This ensures that judges can perform their duties without fear of undue interference or criticism from the legislative branches.
Key Points:
- Maintaining Judicial Decorum: This provision helps to maintain respect for judicial decisions and the integrity of the judiciary by preventing frivolous or politically motivated discussions in the legislature.
- Mechanism for Serious Allegations: The only exception to this restriction is when there is a formal motion for the removal of a judge, which underscores the seriousness required to initiate such discussions.
Important Cases and Commissions Related to Article 211
Cases:
- No specific landmark cases interpreting Article 211 have been identified, as it involves clear constitutional directives that are typically not contested in judicial settings.
Commissions:
- Administrative Reforms Commission: May have discussed aspects related to the separation of powers and the mechanisms for ensuring judicial accountability while protecting judicial independence.
Important Reports Related to Article 211:
- Law Commission Reports: Might include discussions on the balance between legislative freedom of speech and the necessity of judicial independence, recommending safeguards that ensure both are maintained.
Previous Year Prelims Questions Related to Article 211
- (UPSC Prelims 2016) What does Article 211 of the Constitution prohibit?
- A. Discussion of the President’s conduct
- B. Discussion of the Prime Minister’s policies
- C. Discussion of a judge’s conduct in their official capacity
- D. Discussion of military operations Correct Answer: C. Discussion of a judge’s conduct in their official capacity
- (UPSC Prelims 2018) Under what condition can the conduct of a judge be discussed in the State Legislature?
- A. At any time when it seems necessary
- B. During the judge’s impeachment proceedings
- C. Upon a motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal of the Judge
- D. If the Chief Minister consents Correct Answer: C. Upon a motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal of the Judge
Previous Year Mains Questions Related to Article 211
- Mains 2016: “Evaluate the implications of Article 211 on the separation of powers within the Indian constitutional framework.”
- Mains 2019: “Discuss the rationale behind the restrictions imposed by Article 211 on discussions in state legislatures regarding the conduct of judges.”
Additional Insights:
- Preservation of Constitutional Morality: Article 211 reflects a commitment to upholding constitutional morality and the decorum necessary for a functional democracy, ensuring that the judiciary is shielded from unwarranted legislative scrutiny.
- Enhanced Public Confidence in Judiciary: By safeguarding judicial figures from potential legislative backlash, the article helps to enhance public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
Understanding Article 211 is crucial for UPSC aspirants as it underscores the constitutional protections afforded to the judiciary, illustrating the importance of maintaining a robust separation of powers. This knowledge is essential for both preliminary and main examinations, offering insights into the constitutional safeguards that ensure the judiciary remains free from legislative overreach.