X v. O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE
Interpretation of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - Constitution of Inquiry Committee for Judge Removal; Role of Presiding Officers and Impact of Motion Admission.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 65
Decision Date: 16-01-2026
List of Laws
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Article 124 of the Constitution of India; Article 217 of the Constitution of India; Article 91 of the Constitution of India; Article 32 of the Constitution of India; Statutory Interpretation; Doctrine of Necessity
- Facts: A High Court Judge faced allegations of misbehaviour after a fire at his residence led to the discovery of burnt currency notes. A three-member committee, constituted by the Chief Justice of India, substantiated the allegations, leading to motions for the Judge's removal in both Houses of Parliament on the same day. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitted the motion, while the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, acting as Chairman due to a vacancy, did not admit the motion. The Speaker then constituted a committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Judge challenged the committee's constitution, arguing that the first proviso to Section 3(2) required a joint committee since notices were given in both Houses on the same day.
- Procedural Posture: The case originated as a writ petition filed by the Judge in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitution of the inquiry committee.
- Issue: 1. How should the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, be construed, specifically regarding the requirement of a joint committee when notices are given in both Houses on the same day, but one House refuses to admit the motion? 2. Was the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion? 3. What is the effect of the Deputy Chairman's refusal on the validity of the Speaker's action under Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act?
- Holding: 1. The first proviso to Section 3(2) applies only when notices of motion are given and admitted in both Houses on the same day. The rejection of a notice in one House does not invalidate the admission in the other. 2. The Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion. 3. The Deputy Chairman's refusal, even if deemed incorrect, does not invalidate the Speaker's lawful action based on an admitted motion in the Lok Sabha.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the first proviso's purpose is to provide an additional safeguard by requiring a joint committee when both Houses agree to proceed with a motion for removal on the same day. The Court rejected the petitioner's interpretation, which would allow a defective notice in one House to scuttle proceedings in the other, potentially leading to abuse. The Court emphasized that the power to constitute a committee rests with the Speaker or Chairman upon admission of the motion, and the proviso only curtails this power when notices are admitted in both Houses. The Court also held that Article 91 of the Constitution empowers the Deputy Chairman to perform the duties of the Chairman when the office is vacant. The Court further stated that the ultimate safeguard of parliamentary approval under Article 124(4) remains intact, as the motion can only succeed if both Houses ultimately adopt it by a special majority.
🔒 For Members Only