Consider the following statements: I. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (inquiry) Act, 1968. II. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. III. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. IV. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Statements 3 and 4 are correct, so the answer is C.

Statement 3 is correct. Article 124(4) and 124(5) lay down removal in principle, while the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides the detailed procedure: a notice signed by 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 of Rajya Sabha, admission or refusal by the Speaker or Chairman, a three-member inquiry committee, and then the vote.

Statement 4 is correct. Article 124(4) requires the motion to be supported in each House by a majority of its total membership and by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting.

Statement 1 is wrong. Section 3(2) of the Act empowers the Speaker to admit or refuse the notice, so the motion can be rejected.

Statement 2 is wrong. The Constitution does not define either 'incapacity' or 'proved misbehaviour'; it only states the grounds for removal.

The core concept is judicial accountability balanced against judicial independence. For Mains, this links to debates on a mechanism for judicial accountability. The removal route has never succeeded: the 1993 motion against Justice Ramaswami failed in Lok Sabha, and Justice Soumitra Sen resigned in 2011 before the Rajya Sabha vote.

Trap: candidates assume the Speaker must admit every notice, or that the Constitution spells out misbehaviour in detail.