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 and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Clarifies and affirms statutory interpretation of the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 |
| Type of Law | Constitutional / Statutory interpretation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The first proviso to Section 3(2) applies only when notices of motion given on the same day are admitted in both Houses—only then must a joint Committee be formed. A unilateral rejection in one House does not invalidate an admitted motion in the other, and the Speaker may independently constitute a three-member inquiry committee. Upon vacancy in the Rajya Sabha Chairmanship, the Deputy Chairman validly exercises all Chairman functions under Article 91. Unchallenged orders cannot be quashed and no demonstrable prejudice is shown to invoke writ relief. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court applied established rules of statutory interpretation (strict reading of proviso, no reading-in to nullify the main text); upheld constitutional supremacy over statutes; invoked the doctrine of necessity; construed Articles 124, 217, 91; affirmed limits of writ jurisdiction in absence of demonstrable prejudice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | While serving as a Delhi HC Judge, the petitioner’s residence fire on 14 March 2025 revealed burnt currency; an in-house three-member committee appointed by the CJI found allegations substantiated and recommended removal. On 21 July 2025, motions for removal were given in both Houses; the Rajya Sabha motion was refused admission by the Deputy Chairman on 11 August 2025, whereas the Lok Sabha motion was admitted by the Speaker on 12 August 2025, leading to constitution of a three-member inquiry committee. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts, parliamentary presiding officers, and tribunals interpreting the Judges (Inquiry) Act and related removal procedures |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, administrative bodies in constitutional discipline cases |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act is triggered only when notices “given” on the same day are also “admitted” in both Houses of Parliament.
- Establishes that rejection of a motion in one House does not automatically invalidate an admitted motion in the other; a single-House committee may validly proceed.
- Confirms that the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman, under Article 91, lawfully exercises all functions of the Chairman when the office is vacant, including admission/refusal of motions.
- Reiterates the limited administrative role of the Secretary-General, who cannot assume a quasi-adjudicatory function in evaluating substantive merits of a motion.
- Emphasizes that writ relief under Article 32 requires demonstrable, real prejudice and cannot be invoked for mere procedural divergences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court construed the first proviso narrowly to apply only if motions given on the same day are admitted in both Houses, thereby avoiding nullification of the main provision.
- It applied settled rules of statutory interpretation: a proviso cannot negate the main text, expressio unius, and avoidance of judicial legislation.
- It rejected the petitioner’s reading as requiring unprecedented consequence—automatic failure of one House’s motion upon rejection by the other.
- On constitutional grounds, it held Article 91 empowers the Deputy Chairman to perform Chairman functions when the office is vacant.
- The court declined to assess hypothetical prejudice, finding the petitioner’s process rights fully protected by the statutory framework and ultimate Parliamentary threshold.
- It underscored limits of writ jurisdiction: absence of a challenge to the Deputy Chairman’s order and no violation of fundamental rights precluded interference.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The first proviso mandates a joint Committee only if both Houses admit same-day motions; a rejection in one must invalidate the other.
- The Deputy Chairman exceeded authority; only the Chairman may admit or refuse a motion under the Act.
- The Speaker’s unilateral constitution of the Committee contravened Section 3(2) and violated the petitioner’s rights.
Respondents
- The proviso applies only when motions are “admitted” in both Houses; here the Rajya Sabha motion was not admitted.
- Article 91 constitutionally empowers the Deputy Chairman to act as Chairman when the office is vacant.
- No demonstrable prejudice arose; the Speaker validly admitted the Lok Sabha motion and constituted a Committee under the Act.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a Delhi High Court Judge, faced misbehaviour allegations after burnt currency notes were found in a fire at his residence on 14 March 2025. A Supreme Court in-house committee confirmed the charges. On 21 July 2025, Members of both Parliament Houses tendered removal motions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The Rajya Sabha motion was declared “not admitted” by the Deputy Chairman on 11 August 2025, while the Lok Sabha motion was admitted by the Speaker on 12 August 2025, who then formed a three-member inquiry committee.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 124(4)–(5) and Article 217 empower Parliament to regulate removal of Judges for proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
- Section 3(1)–(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 provides for notice, admission, and constitution of a three-member committee.
- The first proviso to Section 3(2) applies exclusively when notices “given” on the same day are “admitted” in both Houses, requiring a joint committee.
- Article 91 authorises the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha to perform all duties of the Chairman when the office is vacant, including admission/refusal decisions under Section 3(1).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed