Home The Constitution Part V Article 124

Art. 124 Part V: The Union

Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court

Exact text — Constitution of India

(1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India constituting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than thirty-three other Judges. (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose... (4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except 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.

In Plain English

What this Article actually means

This Article establishes India's apex court and its judge-appointment process — nominally through Presidential appointment 'after consultation', but decades of judicial interpretation of that word 'consultation' gave rise to the 'collegium system', where senior judges effectively make the binding decision. Clause (4) makes removing a sitting judge extraordinarily difficult — requiring the same demanding two-House, two-thirds-majority process used for presidential impeachment, specifically on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity'.

Why This Matters To You

How it shows up in everyday life

This Article's judge-appointment 'consultation' language is the textual root of one of Indian constitutional law's most significant and contested doctrines — the collegium system — and its removal protections are why no sitting Supreme Court judge has ever actually been removed through this process, despite a few attempts, reflecting the framers' deliberate emphasis on judicial independence.

Landmark Cases

How courts have interpreted this Article

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (Second Judges Case)AIR 1994 SC 268 — Established the collegium system, holding the Chief Justice's opinion (formed collectively with senior judges) is effectively binding on judicial appointments — a landmark reinterpretation of this Article's 'consultation' requirement. Verify this case

Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India (NJAC Case)(2016) 5 SCC 1 — Struck down the 99th Amendment's National Judicial Appointments Commission as unconstitutional, holding judicial independence in appointments is part of the basic structure — restoring the collegium system. Verify this case

Read alongside this one

Art. 124a — National Judicial Appointments Commission (Struck Down)Art. 141 — Law Declared by Supreme Court to Be Binding on All Courts

Frequently Asked

Quick answers about Article 124

Has any Supreme Court judge ever actually been removed under this Article's process?

No — despite a few impeachment motions being initiated against sitting judges over the decades, none has ever successfully completed the full two-House, two-thirds process required for actual removal.

← BackPart V Overview Next →Article 124A: National Judicial Appointments Commission

The text above reproduces Article 124 of the Constitution of India as amended to date, for general educational reference. It is public-domain legislative text, but we recommend cross-checking the authoritative version at legislative.gov.in or india.gov.in before relying on it for a legal matter. The explanation, examples and FAQs are general information, not legal advice — consult a qualified advocate for guidance on your specific situation.