Legal Provisions Involved: Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Articles 89, 91 and 124(4) of the Constitution of India.

Judgement By: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta

Facts

The case started after a fire at the house of a Delhi High Court Judge in March 2025, where burnt currency notes were allegedly found. This led to allegations of misconduct. An in-house committee formed by the Chief Justice of India found the allegations serious and recommended removal proceedings. Notices for the Judge’s removal were given in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on the same day. 

The Rajya Sabha later refused to admit the notice, but the Lok Sabha admitted it and the Speaker formed a Judges Inquiry Committee. The Judge challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Provisions

Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

Articles 89, 91 and 124(4) of the Constitution of India.

Issues Raised

Whether a joint committee was compulsory just because notices were given in both Houses on the same day?

Arguments of the Case

The Judge argued that only a joint committee could be formed and that the Speaker acted alone illegally. The government argued that a joint committee is required only when both Houses admit the motion.

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that a joint committee is needed only when both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha admit the motion. Since the Rajya Sabha did not admit the motion, the Speaker was right in forming the committee alone. The petition was dismissed.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.