IMPEACHMENT

 

46. IMPEACHMENT

Edmund Burke roared in the British parliament. ‘I impeach Warren Hastings, Esquire, of high crimes and misdemeanours.

            ‘I impeach him in the name of the Commons of Great Britain in Parliament assembled, whose parliamentary trust he has betrayed.

            ‘I impeach him in the name of the people of India……’

The British people, both high and the low alike, thronged the gallery of the House of Lords and lined up the sidewalks outside parliament to witness the sensational trial of the century.

Tha magic of Richard Sheridan’s oratory, that kept the entire house spellbound for five hours a day, was such that there were people willing to shell out even a thousand pounds to obtain a copy of its full text. There were also people who would bribe a big sum for entry into the trial court.

However great and efficient an administrator might be, he should in the final reckoning be accountable to the parliament and the people. The impeachment helped to further cement this fundamental democratic ideal. Along with this, the Warren Hastings procedure also helped to refurbish the tool of impeachment, that had more or less remained rusted and discarded during the Tudor regimes of Elizabeth and Henry VIII, as the sharpest and most powerful weapon of parliamentary democracy.

It was, however, an anti-climax of history that three years after the impeachment, in 1795, Warren Hastings was fully exonerated by the House of Lords. It may be yet another instance of the incongruity of parliamentary democracy that when the 81- year old Warren Hastings appeared in person before the impeachment body, it was with utmost respect and honour that the house recalled the services rendered by this valiant son of England.

What is impeachment ? And what is it for? By general definition it means trial before parliament of a minister, top official or judge accused of any serious misdemeanour or misconduct. Impeachment first surfaced during the 14th century. The first to be impeached in the history of England were Baron William Latimer and his son-in-law John Neville who were top functionaries in the court of Edward III. It appeared as if history had ignored this tool for the next three centuries. When after a long interval it returned as a potent parliamentary weapon those who lost power and prestige included Lord Essex and Canterbury Archbishop William Laud. One of the impeachments occasionally remembered by history was that of the great litterateur Francis Bacon. It is interesting to note how this judge standing in the dock defended his action: ‘I may have taken bribe but that has never influenced my judgments. ’

In monarchical England where loyalty to the crown was a way of life, the general feeling of the people was that the crown was infallible. It meant that if the administration erred, the responsibility lay with some minister. Impeachment was a tool with which such erring ministers could be brought under the thumb of parliament. A pawn on the chess board of politics.

But is impeachment confined to the Westminster system? No. In the United States Richard Nixon could avoid facing the ignominy of impeachment only because he resigned as President. The only President in the U S who was subjected to impeachment was Andrew Johnson who succeeded Abraham Lincoln. He survived on the strength of just one vote. In all states except Oregon there is law providing for the removal of top officials and judges through the process of impeachment.

Pakistan President Musharaff too had to step down when he came to the brink of impeachment. There was a move to impeach President Premadasa of Sri Lanka. In India too there were shrill calls for the impeachment of Chief Election Commissioner T N Seshan. Similarly, advocates of the Supreme Court insisted on impeachment of Supreme Court Judge Ramaswamy. In another instance Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan had granted permission for the impeachment of Justice Soumitra Sen.

In India impeachment is a procedure envisaged by the Constitution. The Constitution provides for the impeachment of top functionaries including judges who are constitutional authorities. Is the Indian President above that? No, there are clear provisions for the impeachment of the President as well. Look at article 61 of the Constitution. The President can be impeached. The impeachment procedure may be initiated either in the Rajya Sabha or the Lok Sabha. The only condition is that there should be a fortnight’s notice for the motion for impeachment and that it should be signed by not less than one fourth of the members of the house. It should be adopted by two third majority. If the chargesheet was filed in the Rajya Sabha it would be the Lok sabha that would take up the impeachment process. Similarly if the motion was passed by the Lok Sabha, the impeachment proceedings would be taken up by the Rajya Sabha. If after investigation the motion is finally adopted by two third majority, the President would be removed from office.

What is the essence of impeachment? It only means that no one is above the law and that in the final analysis it is the people who have the paramount power.  ‘We, the people’ are supreme in democracy.