The stage for investigation could be reached after these conditions have been satisfied, and the enquiry will then be conducted by the other House. Under article 50 (3), either the House would investigate the charge itself or appoint somebody else for the work. If the House undertakes the investigation itself, then there is no reason why the President of the House should not continue to act as President. The Speaker of the House of People–is most trustworthy person and he is above all party-politics. He can be fully trusted to act justly without fear or favour. The argument of Mr. Kamath that since the Chairman of the Council of States would also be the Vice-President and so he is not likely to act justly because by the removal of the President he gets a chance to act otherwise, is untenable. Firstly, he would not be the only judge and secondly he would not be so characterless as to cast away all fairness. In this connection, an important question that arises is that if after investigation the charge is substantiated, then the condition of fixing the two-third majority of member would make the right of impeachment quite illusory. To fetter justice by so many restrictions is not proper. There are sufficient and proper safeguards against frivolous accusations in sub-clauses (a) and (b). The result of the enquiry of the House being in support of the charge or the judgment of the Supreme Court or any higher court to that effect, will change the whole position. Under these circumstances there is no necessity of the condition that the Resolution should be confirmed by a two-thirds majority; rather, a bare majority should be enough. If as a result of investigation the charge is not proved, then the question of passing the resolution does not arise. If a two-thirds majority has the right to pass a resolution only in the event when it supports the charge, then it would be an insult to the House, which has investigated the charge, or to the Court appointed for the purpose. In the other case, there is no occasion or justification for passing a resolution. Of course, if the charge is proved the House should have the right to confirm the resolution by bare majority. The entire article 50 remains quite vague and unsatisfactory by not providing any definite machinery and method of investigation in 50 (3) and by not indicating the result as a definite outcome of the investigation in 50 (4). No doubt, this article would be rarely put to use, but, even then, whenever it would be used difficulties in its proper application will have to be faced. In it present form its correct interpretation would become impossible.
