Impeachment of the President: A Critical Analysis between India and U.S.A

Introduction

The word Impeachment is derived from the French word “empeechier” which means “to hinder or impede”. This is mostly used in places where things are dealt with people holding posts which are higher in rank. The word is more often used to basically accuse somebody who is a government official or a part of the higher rank in the government for not doing their work that they are deemed to be doing. This is considered as a more serious offence and actions taken when proven guilty are serious in nature. The context that this paper deals with in regards to impeachment is with respect to the Impeachment of the President.

Objective of the paper 

The main objective of this paper is to understand the impeachment of the President, the meaning, process and reasons for impeachment. The reason for using the comparison between India and the United States of America is to understand how different democracies look on the impeachment laws and the reasons these countries give for the impeachment. Also, in India there has never been a history of Impeachment of a President whereas it is not the case when it comes to the United States of America. So, this paper looks at how this concept works in both countries.  

Research question 

The main question that this paper deals with is how , when & why can the President be Impeached from his/ her role? How are these laws different in India and the United States of America?

Research Methodology 

The research methodology used in this paper is the Doctrinal form of research methodology. This involves using different online available sources which are primary sources and also other sources which are legitimate and reliable sources. 

Body of the paper 

The main understanding of the word impeachment comes from the Article 61 of the Indian Constitution in where it states that : 

1. “When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament.
2. No such charge shall be preferred unless-

• the proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at least fourteen days’ notice in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and 
• such a resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House.

3. When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.
4. If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which the resolution is so passed.[1]”

It means to say that Either house of Parliament can begin the process by proposing a resolution. The requirement for this is at least 1/4th of the house members must sign a written notice proposing the impeachment with 14 days’ advance warning. The proposal needs to be passed by a majority of at least 2/3rds of the house members.  The other house of Parliament investigates the charges, and the President has the right to appear and defend themselves during this process.[2]

The Constituent assembly took up to debate on this matter when it  was drafting the constitution. We can see that clause 1 clearly states that the impeachment proceedings can be initiated in any house of the parliament. An amendment was made to give this power only for the lower house i.e the Lok sabha. We need to understand that the amendment was made so as to contest the fact that the upper house has the equal role to play in the impeachment of the President. The ones who wanted this amendment to happen also had this intention that not all the people who were members of the Rajya Sabha were not those who are directly elected by the people and are rather indirectly elected or nominated to the Parliament. But, the Lok sabha members on the other hand are those who are elected by the people of the country directly. Hence awarding these elected ones the power to impeach the President sounded more sensible to them as they stated  the members of the Lok sabha to be those who are truly the representative of the citizens of India. They also took this to the supreme court’s Chief Justice to take over certain matters like these into his hands. But it did not work in their favour and both the houses still exist as those where the process of  impeachment can start.

The process for the impeachment is as follows:

1. A notice in the form of a resolution can be brought before any house of the parliament.
2. The resolution must be passed and signed by at least 1/4th of the total members of that particular house.
3. After it is signed, then a written notice along with the copy of the signature of the members supporting the impeachment is sent to the president for him to know what are the allegations brought against him and at least 14 days time is given to the president to present a defensive statement.
4. Next, a resolution launching the impeachment process must be approved by a majority of at least two thirds of the members in that house.
5. After the resolution is passed, the other house investigates the charge.
6. As charges get investigated, the president has the right to appear and defend himself.
7. Now the other house which has investigated the charges shall have a vote with a majority of 2/3rd of total membership of that house.
8. If the other house shall have the effect of removing the president from his office on the date when such resolution is passed by the Parliament.

The impeachment process in the United States of America is a little different from what we see in the Indian context. Impeachment is a constitutional process used in the United States of America to remove certain public officials from office for misconduct or abuse of power. While impeachment is often associated with presidents, it can also apply to other federal officials, such as federal judges. The process is outlined in the United States Constitution, specifically in Article II, Section 4.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states:”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”This section outlines the grounds for impeachment, specifying that the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States can be impeached and removed from office for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”[3]

The phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” has been subject to interpretation throughout history, with scholars and lawmakers debating its precise meaning. Generally, it is understood to encompass serious misconduct or abuse of power by public officials. This broad language gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove officials for a wide range of offenses that undermine the integrity of the government or violate the public trust.

Impeachment serves as a crucial constitutional mechanism for holding public officials accountable and maintaining the balance of power within the U.S. government. It provides a means for Congress to address allegations of misconduct and ensure that officials are held responsible for their actions.

We need to  understand that no matter what the country is when there is a constitutional structure and if there exists the highest seat holder then the person should be removed from office for any mistake they make which becomes unconstitutional. It is expected that the person holding the office of the president is supposed to be perfect when it comes to abiding by the law and be an example to the people of the nation as their first citizen. 

The process of impeachment can in the United States of America is as follows:

Investigation: Typically initiated by the House of Representatives, an investigation into the conduct of the official in question is conducted. This investigation may be carried out by a special committee or through existing congressional committees.

Articles of Impeachment: If the investigation yields evidence of wrongdoing, the House of Representatives drafts articles of impeachment outlining the specific charges against the official.

House Vote: The articles of impeachment are brought to a vote in the House of Representatives. A simple majority vote is required to pass each article.

Senate Trial: If the articles of impeachment are approved by the House, a trial is held in the Senate. The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the trial if the impeached official is the President. For other impeached officials, the Senate selects a presiding officer.

Senate Vote: During the trial, the Senate acts as the jury. A two-thirds majority vote is required to convict and remove the official from office.

The Senate has in certain instances also barred these people from ever holding public office. An appeal is not present. Since 1789, conviction and removal from office have occurred in nearly half of Senate impeachment cases.

There have been a few instances where the president of the United States has been impeached and for various reasons the list and reasons are as follows:

1. Andrew Johnson, the 17th President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1868. The primary charge against him was his violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which sought to limit the President’s ability to remove certain officeholders without Senate approval.
2. Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice related to his extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.The House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton, but he was acquitted by the Senate on both charges. Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial were highly partisan, with Democrats largely supporting him and Republicans largely in favor of removal from office.
3. Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States, was impeached twice by the House of Representatives. The first impeachment occurred in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. Trump’s first impeachment led to a trial in the Senate, where he was acquitted along largely partisan lines. The second impeachment occurred in January 2021, just days before Trump’s term ended, on charges of incitement of insurrection following the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.While Trump was impeached by the House for a second time, he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021.

Once the impeachment of the president is done we have to look for someone who will take up that position at least for the interim period of time. Both these nations have provisions regarding this in their respective constitution.

To begin with India, the Vice president will hold the position of the president for a short until the new president is elected. Article 65 of the Indian Constitution deals with the Vice President stepping in for the President when needed. Here’s the gist:

Vacancy in President’s Office: If the President’s position becomes vacant due to death, resignation, removal, or any other reason, the Vice President takes over as acting President. President’s Absence: If the President is temporarily unavailable due to travel, illness, or any other cause, the Vice President discharges the President’s duties.[4]

Powers and Benefits: During this time, the Vice President has all the powers and immunities of the President and receives the same benefits (salary, allowances, etc.) as determined by Parliament.

So , once the impeachment is done in India then the Vice president will immediately come into the play and will assume the position of the president until the new president is elected.

Now the American take on this is also similar to the Indian context as well, Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 is the provision in the American Constitution which deals with the situations where the president is not present or rather impeached in our case. This clause of the United States Constitution addresses the succession of the presidency in the event of the removal, death, resignation, or inability of the President and Vice President. It states: “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.”[5]

This clause establishes that the Vice President succeeds to the presidency in case of removal, death, resignation, or inability of the President. It also grants Congress the authority to legislate on the line of succession beyond the Vice President, specifying who shall act as President in the event that both the President and Vice President are unable to serve.

In both the United States and India, the constitutions provide for the succession of the presidency in case of impeachment or other circumstances leading to the removal of the President. However, there are differences in the specifics:

In the United States, the Vice President automatically succeeds to the presidency, with Congress having the authority to legislate further on the line of succession if necessary.

In India, the Vice President acts as President until a new President is elected. If the Vice Presidency is also vacant, the Chief Justice of India serves as the acting President until a new President is elected.

These provisions ensure continuity of government and the smooth transition of power in the event of the removal of the President through impeachment or other means.

Conclusion : 

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of impeachment processes in India and the USA sheds light on the unique constitutional frameworks and political dynamics of both nations. While both countries provide mechanisms for the removal of top executives — the President in the USA and the President in India — significant differences exist in the procedures, grounds, and implications of impeachment.

In the USA, the impeachment process is explicitly outlined in the Constitution, with the House of Representatives initiating proceedings and the Senate conducting trials. The grounds for impeachment, namely “high crimes and misdemeanours,” have been subject to interpretation throughout history, reflecting the evolving understanding of executive accountability. Conversely, India’s Constitution provides for the removal of the President through impeachment for violation of the Constitution. The procedure for impeachment, detailed in Article 61, involves both Houses of Parliament, with a special majority required for conviction.

Moreover, the comparison highlights broader implications beyond the legal process itself. Impeachment in the USA often intersects with highly polarised partisan politics, as evidenced by recent impeachments. In contrast, India’s parliamentary system emphasises consensus-building and coalition politics, potentially influencing the impeachment process’s outcomes and dynamics.

Despite these differences, both countries’ impeachment mechanisms serve as critical safeguards against executive misconduct and abuse of power. They reflect each nation’s commitment to upholding democratic principles, accountability, and the rule of law. Moving forward, further research could explore the historical contexts, institutional dynamics, and societal factors shaping impeachment in both India and the USA. Additionally, comparative studies could examine the effectiveness and legitimacy of impeachment processes in promoting good governance and preserving democratic values. Such inquiries would contribute to a deeper understanding of the role of impeachment in democratic systems worldwide.

References:

[1] The Constitution of India, Article 61

[2] The Constitution of India Article 61

[3] The Constitution of the United States of America , Article II, Section 4

[4] The Constitution of India , Article 65

[5] The Constitution of The United States of America, Article II ,Section 1, Clause 6