Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.-001233-001233 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 71319/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Concurring Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for statutory interpretation of the Judges (Inquiry) Act and presiding-officer powers under Articles 124–125 and 91 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent on legislative safeguards, statutory interpretation, and powers of parliamentary presiding officers |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law; statutory interpretation; parliamentary procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The first proviso to Section 3(2) applies only if notices of motion given the same day have both been admitted, and does not bar a single-House inquiry if one presiding officer refuses admission. When the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted, the Lok Sabha Speaker validly constituted the three-member Committee under Section 3(2). The Deputy Chairman lawfully exercised the Chairman’s powers under Article 91 when the office fell vacant. A refusal to admit the motion in one House does not invalidate the admission and Committee constitution in the other, nor requires joint action. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A fire at a Delhi High Court judge’s residence on 14 March 2025 led to allegations of misbehaviour. An in-house three-member committee appointed by the CJI found the allegations substantiated and recommended removal. On 21 July 2025, notices of motion under Section 3(1) were filed in both Houses of Parliament. The Rajya Sabha motion was scrutinised and refused admission by the Deputy Chairman under Article 91 on 11 August 2025. The Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the similar motion on 12 August 2025 and constituted a three-member Inquiry Committee. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Parliament (Speakers/Chairmen), committees under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, all courts interpreting removal procedure |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, tribunals, parliamentary secretariats |
| Follows | Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India; Election Commission v. Subramaniam Swamy |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the first proviso to Section 3(2) triggers only when motions given same day are admitted in both Houses, not merely filed.
- Confirms individual Houses may proceed to constitute the Inquiry Committee if one House refuses or does not admit the motion.
- Holds Deputy Chairman validly exercises Chairman’s removal-inquiry powers under Article 91 when the office is vacant.
- Establishes that a refusal to admit a motion in one House has no effect on another House’s properly admitted motion.
- Emphasises that secretariat “draft decisions” must remain administrative, not substantive adjudication; presiding officer alone decides admission.
- Reaffirms limits of Article 32 jurisdiction: courts will not quash orders not directly challenged or showing real prejudice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Scheme
Section 3(1) of the Inquiry Act distinguishes between “giving” a motion (ministerial filing) and “admitting” it (discretionary judicial/administrative act by Speaker or Chairman). Only an admitted motion triggers Section 3(2). - Interpretation of First Proviso
The proviso applies when motions given the same day are admitted in both Houses. It does not preclude a single-House inquiry where one House refuses admission. To read otherwise would nullify the main section and confer one House a veto over another. - Constitutional Authority under Article 91
Upon the Vice-President’s (Chairman’s) resignation, the Deputy Chairman performs all Chairman’s duties, including admission/refusal under Section 3(1), by constitutional mandate. A statute cannot override this clear constitutional provision. - Effect of RS Refusal
The Deputy Chairman’s refusal to admit the Rajya Sabha motion did not invalidate the Lok Sabha Speaker’s valid admission. Even if that refusal were defective, it would at most invite a fresh RS decision without retrospective impact on the Lok Sabha inquiry. - Limits of Writ Jurisdiction
Courts require a direct challenge to an existing order and showing of demonstrable prejudice. The Petitioner did not challenge the RS refusal nor show any real disadvantage from the single-House Committee. - Balance of Safeguards
The Inquiry Act’s multi-tiered procedure—from admission through committee inquiry to ultimate Parliamentary address—remains intact. This judgment preserves its effectiveness while respecting prescribed judicial safeguards.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- First proviso requires joint constitution by Speaker and Chairman if motions given same day.
- Rejection in one House automatically nullifies the motion in the other.
- Deputy Chairman lacked statutory power to admit/refuse motion; definitions are exhaustive.
- Committee by Speaker alone violates the proviso and is ultra vires.
Respondents
- Proviso is triggered only if both Houses admit the motion; giving alone is insufficient.
- Lok Sabha had a valid-admitted motion; its Speaker could proceed under Section 3(2).
- Article 91 empowers Deputy Chairman to act as Chairman when office is vacant.
- RS refusal order not challenged; no real prejudice to Petitioner; committee constitution is valid.
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to review internal parliamentary procedures absent breach of fundamental rights.
Factual Background
In March 2025, a fire at a Delhi High Court judge’s residence led to an in-house Supreme Court committee finding misbehaviour. On 21 July 2025, motions for his removal under the Judges (Inquiry) Act were filed in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha motion was refused admission by the Deputy Chairman under Article 91 on 11 August 2025, while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted an identical motion on 12 August 2025, prompting constitution of a three-member Inquiry Committee solely by the Speaker.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 3(1): Mandatory “giving” of motion by specified member numbers; discretionary “admission” or refusal by Speaker/Chairman after consultation.
- Section 3(2): Upon admission, Presiding Officer “shall keep the motion pending” and “constitute” a three-member inquiry committee.
- First proviso: Joint committee required if same-day notices are admitted in both Houses.
- Second proviso: Later-given notice (by time) in the other House is rejected if dates differ.
- Articles 124(4) & (5): Grounds and procedure for judicial removal; Parliament empowered to legislate procedure.
- Article 91: Deputy Chairman performs Chairman’s duties when office is vacant.
- Rules 16–17 (Inquiry Rules) vs. Rules 7–9 (RS Procedure): Limited statutory roles for Deputies vs. constitutional mandate in Article 91.
Procedural Innovations
- Secretariat officers must confine scrutiny to procedural compliance and refrain from substantive merits adjudication when assessing notices under Section 3(1).
- Recognition that a “draft decision” by the Secretary-General is advisory; the Presiding Officer’s independent order is determinative.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed — existing law on statutory interpretation and presiding-officer powers affirmed.