Sir, the appointment of the Judges of the High Court has been left to the President and only consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State has been provided for. I quite agree that for the independence of our judiciary the authorities appointing the Judges should be as high as possible but I would personally have preferred if the appointment was made by the President on the advice of the Premier and the Governor together. That however is not possible now, but next to that I would like some distinction to be made between Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court so far as removal is concerned and thus I come to the amendment moved by my Friend Mr. Kamath which I strongly support. According to the provision that has been proposed the removal would be as difficult of a Judge of a High Court as that of a Supreme Court and it is only by reference to Parliament, the highest legislature body in the whole of the Republic, that a removal could be discussed and could be effected. Thus if this provision is retained, then the Legislature of the State will have absolutely no function to perform so far as the High Court and Judges are concerned except the fixation of the maximum age at any age between the age of sixty and sixty-five and determining their salaries and some such insignificant matters. I do not think the Legislatures of the State should either be distrusted to this extent as to have no say in the matter of the removal of High Court Judges or it should be imagined that they would be trying to removed Judges on frivolous grounds. Secondly, the object of making it difficult for the Legislatures to remove Judges could be achieved by providing that the final order would be passed by the President himself but it should at any rate be competent for the State Legislature to present an address through the Governor to the President for the removal of any of the Judges of the High Court. I think this would be a salutary provision which would work for efficiency as well as better relationship between the Judicature and the State Legislature as well as the Executive in the State. We may further provide that a removal of a judge could take place on a limited and restricted grounds and we might not leave it to their discretion. The ground may be the same as have been stated in the previous 1935 Act, Section 220, where it has been provided that a judge may be removed from his office by His Majesty by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual on the ground of misbehavior or of infirmity of mind or body if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on reference being made to them by His Majesty, report that the judge ought on any such ground to be removed. So these grounds may be taken from this section, and on these grounds appropriately modified it should be competent for the Legislature of a State to present an address to the President so that a judge may be removed. I do not think there is any other means excepting the Governor to know the capacity and the efficiency, character etc. of a Judge of the High Court. It is the Provincial Governor and the Provincial Legislatures who are more competent to know all these things and if they are convinced that a certain judge ought to be removed, I think it should be given the necessary powers for such removal.
