Removal by parliament
Vijay Kumar
(Querist) 07 July 2009
This query is : Resolved
My question is--
Who of the following cannot be removed by the parliament?
(a) Attorney General
(b) Auditor General
(c) Election Commissioner
(d) Chief Justice of India
Resp. expert members if possible pls give explanation also.
[The question was asked in UPHJS(Pre)2009 Exam, my brother was a candidate and I want to know the correct answer of this question.]
Thanks in advance.
SANJAY DIXIT
(Expert) 07 July 2009
Dear Vijay,
As for as my knowledge is concerned, the answer should be (a) Attorney General
According to Article 76(4) The Attorney General shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.
Rest of all the three can be removed from their offices by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 07 July 2009
Dear Sir,
i beg to differ with the view since in my view the Chief Justice of India should be the answer. the reason is that jusiciary is separate part of functionaries under the Constitution as legislature and executive.
all the rest three are appointed by the president after recommendation of the parliament.
CJI can be removed only after proving a guilt and after due impeachment and not otherwise. it doesnt depend upon the whim of the parliament.
Dinesh Sharma
(Expert) 07 July 2009
Only the election commissioner cannot be removed by the parliament. Election commissioner can only be removed by the President. Dinesh Sharma Advocate.
Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar
(Expert) 08 July 2009
Mr Dixit is right. except attorney general all other are on equal footing so for their removal is concerned.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 07 August 2009
Yes, I agree with Mr. Dixit,
in spite of complete freedom given to the judiciary to be searate from the other pillars of the Constitution(which infact it does), the wordings of the Constitution is as such that while answering the above qustion we ar bound to choose the option of Attoeney General as the answer as its the post at the pleasure of the president.
but in reality, this is the post which alwys subsits on the whim of the legislature and in this case they are not required either to pass any resolution or sth, but just to issue the instruction for removing the Attorney General without giving any reason thereof. the President becomes bound to sign the order so made.
this is irony of wordings where in fact the post solely subsits on the whim of the parliament stiil it is wriiten that it can not be withdrawn by the parliament.
