The Constituent Assembly took up Draft Article 50 for debate on 28 December 1948. The Draft Article set out the procedure by which the President of India could be removed from office.
Clause 1 stated that impeachment proceedings could be initiated in either house of parliament. An amendment was moved to give this power to only the lower house, the Lok Sabha. The amendment’s mover argued that unlike the Upper house, Rajya Sabha, whose members were indirectly elected or nominated, the Lok Sabha was truly representative of the people; And this was important to consider in deciding the impeachment process.
Another member wanted the Chief Justice of Supreme Court to preside over the investigations into the charges framed against the President, similar to what was provided for in the American Constitution. To ensure impartiality, the member argued, it was more appropriate for the Chief Justice to preside over the House’s proceedings, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. Further, the investigations would involve questions of fact, admissibility of evidence and other legal aspects which were best handled by a member of the judiciary, like the Chief justice.
There was also a proposal to replace the two-thirds majority required to pass an impeachment resolution with just a simple majority. The member who put forward this amendment felt that the two-thirds majority was against the spirit of democracy, was too stringent a criterion, and would make it hard to pass impeachment resolutions.
The Chairman of the Drafting Committee responded to all of the above amendments. On the first amendment, he argued that behaviour of the President is a matter of concern for lower and upper houses, and therefore it did not make sense to only allow the lower house to initiate impeachment proceedings. Second, he said that there was no problem in bringing in the Chief Justice to preside over investigations; This could be provided for in the Houses’ rules of procedure and was not necessary to include in the Constitution. On the third amendment, he argued that unlike a no-confidence motion, an impeachment motion would associate the President with shame, moral turpitude and ruination of the public career of the President. Therefore, it was necessary to set the high bar of a two-thirds majority to pass an impeachment motion.
The Draft Article was adopted with a minor amendment.