Which of the following is an incorrect procedure to impeach a Judge of

Which of the following is an incorrect procedure to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court?

A motion addressed to the President signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha is delivered to the Speaker or the Chairman.
The motion is to be taken up for investigation by a Committee comprising 2 Judges of the Supreme Court and a distinguished jurist.
The motion is put to vote irrespective of the outcome of the Committee's Report.
The motion needs to be passed by each House by majority of the total membership of that House and two-thirds of the members present and voting.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2020
The correct answer is The motion is put to vote irrespective of the outcome of the Committee’s Report.
– The procedure for impeachment of a Supreme Court Judge is governed by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, read with Articles 124(4) and 217 of the Constitution.
– The process involves:
– Initiation of a motion signed by required members (100 LS or 50 RS) (Option A – Correct initial step).
– Constitution of an Inquiry Committee by the Speaker/Chairman (Option B describes a committee, though its composition description is inaccurate based on the Act’s specification of one SC judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one jurist. However, the *existence* of a committee is correct).
– Investigation and Report by the Committee.
– **Crucially, if the Committee reports that the Judge is *not* guilty, the motion lapses, and no further steps are taken in either House. Only if the Committee finds the Judge guilty is the motion taken up for consideration and voting.** (Option C is incorrect).
– Passing the motion in each House by a special majority (majority of total membership and 2/3rd of members present and voting) (Option D – Correct).
– Option C describes a procedure where the outcome of the mandatory inquiry report is ignored, which directly contradicts the statutory procedure laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The report’s finding of guilt is a necessary precondition for the motion to be voted upon in the Houses.
– While Option B’s description of the committee’s composition is factually incorrect (the Act specifies one SC Judge, one HC Chief Justice, and one jurist, not two SC Judges), Option C describes a fundamental failure to follow the laid down sequence and dependency, making it the more clearly incorrect *procedural step* in the sequence.