# 2026 INSC 65

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 65
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-01-16
- **Bench:** Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/2026-insc-65-39194
- **Pages:** 57

## Headnote

Does the first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having
been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed by
refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House
and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer of the other
House; whether, in view of the office of the Chairman of the Rajya
Sabha falling vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion; what
is the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman's refusal to admit
the motion on the validity of the Speaker's action under Section
3(2) of the Inquiry Act; whether the draft decision prepared by the
Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha recording that the notice
of motion given to the Chairman is not "in order" justified in law;
whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Headnotes†
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - First proviso to s.3(2) -
Interpretation - Allegations of misbehaviour were levelled
against the petitioner, a serving Judge of the Delhi High Court
after burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered at his
house during the course of dousing the fire that occurred at
his residence - In accordance with the "In-House Procedure",
a three-member committee was constituted by then CJI to
examine the allegations, which submitted its report to the
CJI recording that the allegations were substantiated and that
they warranted initiation of proceedings for the petitioner's
removal from office - CJI then forwarded the report to the
Hon'ble President and the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India -
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
201
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
Writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before Supreme Court,
challenging Paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of the In-House Procedure,
the forwarding of the report of the three-member committee
by the CJI, and the report itself, which was dismissed - In
the meanwhile, Members of both Houses, gave two notices of
motion in their respective Houses on the same day seeking
removal of the petitioner from office - The Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha resigned from his office of the Vice-President
of India later that day - Deputy Chairman (discharging the
functions of the Chairman in his absence) rejected the motion -
Subsequently, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha proceeded to
admit the notice given in the Lok Sabha and in accordance with
s.3(2), constituted a three-member Committee - Challenged
by the petitioner - Plea of the petitioner that since notices
u/s.3(1) were given in both Houses on the same day, the
Committee constituted solely by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
violates the proviso - Does the first proviso to s.3(2) require
the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having
been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed
by refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one
House and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer
of the other House:
Held: No - The proviso applies to only one specific situation,
namely, where notices of motion given on the same day have
been admitted by both Houses - It does not restrict or negate
the individual authority of either House of Parliament - In a case
where notices of motion were given in both Houses on the same
day, the fact that a notice is not admitted in one House will not
necessitate constitution of a Joint Committee and the Speaker or
the Chairman, as the case may be, can independently proceed
to constitute a Committee - The interpretation of the first proviso,
as advanced by the petitioner, that where notices of motion have
been given in both Houses on the same day, the rejection of a
notice in one House would automatically result in the notice in
the other House failing, not accepted - The first proviso does not
address all possible permutations but is confined to one specific
situation, namely, where notices of motion given in both Houses
on the same day have been admitted in both H

## Text

_Characters 0–39,161 of 126,780. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39161 for what follows._

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 200 : 2026 INSC 65
X
v.
O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1233 of 2025)
16 January 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Does the first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having
been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed by
refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House
and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer of the other
House; whether, in view of the office of the Chairman of the Rajya
Sabha falling vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion; what
is the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman's refusal to admit
the motion on the validity of the Speaker's action under Section
3(2) of the Inquiry Act; whether the draft decision prepared by the
Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha recording that the notice
of motion given to the Chairman is not "in order" justified in law;
whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Headnotes†
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - First proviso to s.3(2) -
Interpretation - Allegations of misbehaviour were levelled
against the petitioner, a serving Judge of the Delhi High Court
after burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered at his
house during the course of dousing the fire that occurred at
his residence - In accordance with the "In-House Procedure",
a three-member committee was constituted by then CJI to
examine the allegations, which submitted its report to the
CJI recording that the allegations were substantiated and that
they warranted initiation of proceedings for the petitioner's
removal from office - CJI then forwarded the report to the
Hon'ble President and the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India -
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
201
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
Writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before Supreme Court,
challenging Paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of the In-House Procedure,
the forwarding of the report of the three-member committee
by the CJI, and the report itself, which was dismissed - In
the meanwhile, Members of both Houses, gave two notices of
motion in their respective Houses on the same day seeking
removal of the petitioner from office - The Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha resigned from his office of the Vice-President
of India later that day - Deputy Chairman (discharging the
functions of the Chairman in his absence) rejected the motion -
Subsequently, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha proceeded to
admit the notice given in the Lok Sabha and in accordance with
s.3(2), constituted a three-member Committee - Challenged
by the petitioner - Plea of the petitioner that since notices
u/s.3(1) were given in both Houses on the same day, the
Committee constituted solely by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
violates the proviso - Does the first proviso to s.3(2) require
the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having
been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed
by refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one
House and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer
of the other House:
Held: No - The proviso applies to only one specific situation,
namely, where notices of motion given on the same day have
been admitted by both Houses - It does not restrict or negate
the individual authority of either House of Parliament - In a case
where notices of motion were given in both Houses on the same
day, the fact that a notice is not admitted in one House will not
necessitate constitution of a Joint Committee and the Speaker or
the Chairman, as the case may be, can independently proceed
to constitute a Committee - The interpretation of the first proviso,
as advanced by the petitioner, that where notices of motion have
been given in both Houses on the same day, the rejection of a
notice in one House would automatically result in the notice in
the other House failing, not accepted - The first proviso does not
address all possible permutations but is confined to one specific
situation, namely, where notices of motion given in both Houses
on the same day have been admitted in both Houses - It is only in
that limited situation that the statute mandates the constitution of a
Joint Committee - The first proviso is not exhaustive but situational
202
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in nature - It does not contemplate a scenario where a notice of
motion is accepted in one House and rejected in the other - To
interpret the said proviso in the manner suggested by the petitioner
would require to read into it a disabling consequence, namely,
that the motion pending in the other House must also necessarily
fail - Such an interpretation would amount to judicial legislation -
There is nothing in the Inquiry Act to suggest that rejection of a
motion in one House would render the other House incompetent
to proceed in accordance with law. [Paras 12.1-12.3, 12.5, 14, 54]
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - s.3 - Constitution of India - Article
91 - Rules of Procedure of the Rajya Sabha - rr.7-9 - Plea of
the petitioner that the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha,
acting as the Chairman, was not even empowered to consider
the question of admission of the motion, far less refusing to
admit it - Whether, in view of the office of the Chairman of
the Rajya Sabha falling vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse admission of the notice
of motion:
Held: Yes - The Deputy Chairman was competent to consider the
notice and refuse admission of the motion - Constitution is the
supreme law of the land and all laws validly enacted owe their
origin to the Constitution - To proceed in disregard of what the
Constitution ordains would be an act of gross impropriety on our
part - To read the statute in isolation of the Constitution would
be grossly incorrect - Any interpretation of a statute which has
the effect of generating an interpretation fouling the Constitution
should be eschewed - A fortiori, a narrow interpretation of the
word "Chairman" appearing in s.3 overlooking Article 91 would
be incoherent - The onerous obligation, nay, duty of the Deputy
Chairman, to perform the duties of the office of the Chairman
is sacrosanct to the functioning of the Council of States - The
duties that the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman (in case of a
vacancy in the former office) perform under the Inquiry Act cannot
be separated from the office that they hold as the Presiding Officer
of the House - Furthermore, Doctrine of necessity also compels
the Deputy Chairman, or whosoever is the incumbent acting in
place of the Chairman, to exercise the functions of the Chairman
in his place - Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 - Doctrine of necessity.
[Para 17.2, 17.3, 18.3, 22, 54]
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
203
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - First proviso to s.3(2) - What is
the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman's refusal to admit
the motion on the validity of the Speaker's action u/s.3(2):
Held: No need to examine this issue, as the order of the Deputy
Chairman is not under challenge - Arguendo, even if it were
examined, it would have no effect, since the Speaker committed
no illegality in constituting the committee - Moreover, the validity
of the Speaker's action does not hinge upon the correctness or
otherwise of the decision taken by the Deputy Chairman - The
first proviso would spring into action only when notices of motion
(given on the same day in both Houses) have been admitted in
both Houses - Thus, even if the refusal by the Deputy Chairman
(performing the duties of the office of the Chairman of the Rajya
Sabha) were to be ignored as legally unsustainable, the factual as
well as legal position would still remain as it is: that, as on the date
when the Speaker acted, there was no admitted motion pending
in the Rajya Sabha - In the absence of an admitted motion in one
House, the statutory sine qua non for the applicability of the proviso
stood unfulfilled - Furthermore, at the highest, a declaration that
the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had erred in the exercise
of his statutory power by failing to act in accordance with law
which would entail reconsideration of the notice by the Presiding
Officer of the Rajya Sabha, in accordance with law - However,
it cannot, retrospectively invalidate a lawful exercise of power
already undertaken by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, which was
founded on an admitted motion - Even if the act of the Deputy
Chairman were to be held illegal and consequently set aside / or
a reconsideration were ordered, the same would never result in
restoration of the status quo ante - Even such limited declaratory
relief, however, cannot be granted in the present case in the
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
[Para 24-26, 27.1, 54]
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 -
Whether the draft decision prepared by the Secretary-General
of the Rajya Sabha recording that the notice of motion given
to the Chairman is not "in order" justified in law:
Held: No; the manner in which the notice of motion was processed
at the Secretariat level does not fully align with the role contemplated
204
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
under law - The Inquiry Act does not contemplate a substantive
assessment of the merits of the allegations by the Secretariat of
a House - The Secretary General's role was expected to remain
confined to administrative scrutiny, such as verification of procedural
compliance, and could not extend to assuming a quasi-adjudicatory
function - Neither the Inquiry Act nor the Rules framed thereunder
prescribe a mandatory form for a notice of motion - In the absence
of defined parameters, it is not readily apparent on what basis the
Secretary General concluded that the Notice of Motion was not 'in
order' - Where no prescribed format exists, a notice containing
allegations of impropriety against a Judge could not reasonably be
treated as ineffective solely on account of perceived deficiencies in
drafting or form - The role of the Secretary General was confined
to placing the notice before the competent authority, namely, the
office of the Chairman, without expressing any conclusion as to
its admissibility - The Secretary General went beyond a purely
administrative role is apparent from the language employed in
the document itself - Clarified, that the procedure leading to the
decision of the Deputy Chairman has been discussed purely
academically and shall not, directly or indirectly, be relied upon
or invoked to claim any benefit, leverage, or advantage by the
petitioner. [Para 49-54]
Constitution of India - Article 32 - Whether the petitioner is
entitled to any relief:
Held: The extraordinary remedy under Article 32 is confined to
enforcement of Fundamental Rights and does not extend to issuing
advisory or corrective directions in relation to internal statutory
mechanisms of the Parliament, where no present or inevitable
infraction of any Fundamental Right is evinced - Petitioner is, thus,
not entitled to any relief - No interference is called for. [Paras 55, 56]
Interpretation of Statutes - Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - First
proviso to s.3(2):
Held: A proviso cannot be read in a way which nullifies the provision
to which it is a proviso, unless such an intention is manifest - The
main part of s.3(2) vests the power to constitute a Committee in
the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, upon admission
of the notice of motion - The first proviso cannot be read to curtail
this power except in one clearly defined circumstance, namely,
the admission of notices in both Houses - In all other cases, the
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
205
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
power of the Speaker or the Chairman to constitute a Committee
remains unaffected. [Para 12.4]
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - First proviso to s.3(2) - Plea
of the petitioner that the rejection of a notice in one House
results in the notice automatically failing in the other House:
Held: Such interpretation would entail consequences of a most
serious nature - The members would be put to square one and
the process has to be initiated afresh in either House - Had the
Parliament intended such far-reaching consequences, it would
have articulated the first proviso in clear and unambiguous terms -
Accepting such an argument would produce absurd results where
the individual capacity of one House in initiating a motion under
Article 124(4) becomes contingent upon the outcome in the other
House, even at the stage of admission of such a motion - Taking
away the autonomy of one of the two Houses of the Parliament
could not have been the intent behind the first proviso - Such an
interpretation must also be rejected on the ground that it renders
the first proviso open to abuse. [Paras 12.5-12.7]
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - First proviso to s.3(2) - The first
proviso must be construed to balance prescribed protection
with the effective functioning of the mechanism for removal of
a Judge from office triggered by the peoples' representatives,
and not to frustrate it altogether - Plea of the petitioner that
the legislative intent underlying the proviso is to confer an
additional layer of protection to a Judge, by ensuring that if
either House is unwilling to admit the motion, the process of
impeachment must necessarily fail:
Held: Such contention not agreed with - The protection afforded to a
Judge remains fully intact as, even where a motion is admitted and a
Committee is constituted, either House retains the absolute authority
to reject the motion after the Committee's report is placed before
it - Moreover, assuming arguendo, that the proviso was intended
to provide such heightened protection, it cannot be interpreted
in a manner that renders the mechanism of removal practically
unworkable - Constitutional safeguards for Judges cannot come at
the cost of paralysing the removal process itself - The first proviso
must, therefore, be construed to balance prescribed protection with
the effective functioning of the mechanism for removal of a Judge
from office triggered by the peoples' representatives, and not to
frustrate it altogether. [Para 12.9]
206
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Prejudice - Plea of the petitioner that initiation of proceedings
against the petitioner has caused irreparable reputational and
constitutional prejudice and that the doctrine of "no prejudice"
cannot apply where mandatory safeguards are violated:
Held: This argument presupposes illegality in the constitution
of the Committee, which has not been accepted - Once the
Committee is lawfully constituted, the statute itself provides for
elaborate safeguards at the investigation stage, including framing
of charges, opportunity of defence, cross-examination of witnesses,
and adjudication by a body comprising of senior constitutional
functionaries - At this nascent stage, no civil consequences follow;
the motion itself remains pending and can succeed only if both
Houses ultimately adopt it by the constitutionally mandated special
majority - Moreover, reputational injury, howsoever unfortunate,
cannot be a ground to subvert a constitutionally sanctioned statutory
process, particularly when the Parliament has consciously designed
a multi tiered safeguard structure before any adverse consequence
can ensue - Also, the ultimate safeguard of Parliamentary approval
under Article 124(4) also remains intact - Even from the standpoint
of the petitioner, no vested or accrued right gets defeated and the
petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any vested or
accrued right. [Para 31-34]
Constitution of India - Article 32 - Decision of the Deputy
Chairman declining to admit the motion was not challenged -
Effect of:
Held: In the absence of any challenge to the decision of the Deputy
Chairman, there is no reason to outlaw it - The settled limits of
writ jurisdiction do not permit the Court to confer relief in vacuum,
divorced from a direct challenge to the order which is alleged to
be the source of illegality. [Para 44, 45]
Constitution of India - Article 217 read with Article 124 -
Removal of a Judge from office - Procedure for - Six stages
viz., Introduction of Motion & Admission by Speaker/Chairman;
Formulation of a Committee of three members for making
investigation; Formulation of Charges and Investigation;
Report by the Committee and discussion in Parliament;
Discussion in the Parliament; Order of the President,
discussed. [Paras 6.1-6.10]
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
207
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
Case Law Cited
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India [1991]
Supp. 2 SCR 1 : (1991) 4 SCC 699; Central Bank of India v.
Workmen [1960] 1 SCR 200 : 1959 SCC OnLine SC 1; Election
Commission of India v. Subramaniam Swamy [1996] Supp. 1
SCR 637 : (1996) 4 SCC 104; Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat
Coop. Milk Mktg. Federation Ltd. [2015] 3 SCR 997 : (2015) 8
SCC 1; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sunita Mehra (2001)
9 SCC 344; Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller Flour
Mills (P) Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 326; Amina Marwa Sabreen v. State
of Kerala (2018) 14 SCC 193; Fuleshwar Gope v. Uol [2024] 10
SCR 315 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2610 - para 27; Vijay Narayan
Thatte v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 14 SCR 891 : (2009) 9
SCC 92 - paras 5, 10, 12, 13, 14 & 15; G Narayanaswami v.
G Pannerselvam [1973] 1 SCR 172 : (1972) 3 SCC 717 - para
18-20; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1981] 1 SCR 746 : (1980) 4
SCC 379; P.D. Dinakaran (2) v. Judges Inquiry Committee (2011)
8 SCC 474; Sarojini Ramaswami (Mrs) v. Union of India [1992]
Supp. 1 SCR 108 : (1992) 4 SCC 506; Krishna Swami v. Union
of India [1992] Supp. 1 SCR 53 : (1992) 4 SCC 605; Dwarka
Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf [1976] 1 SCR 277 : (1976) 1 SCC
128;Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad [1980] 3 SCR 32 : (1980) 2
SCC 378; S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman [1985] 2 SCR
643 : (1985) 1 SCC 591; J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of
Factories and Boilers [1996] Supp. 6 SCR 798 : (1996) 6 SCC
665; Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar
[1998] 3 SCR 432 : (1998) 5 SCC 192; Rohitash Kumar v. Om
Prakash Sharma [2012] 13 SCR 47 : (2013) 11 SCC 451; ECIL v.
B. Karunakar [1993] Supp. 2 SCR 576 : (1993) 4 SCC 727; State
Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma [1996] 3 SCR 972 : (1996) 3 SCC
364; State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh [2020] 13 SCR 571 :
(2021) 19 SCC 706; S.P. Gupta v. U.P. State Electricity Board
(1991) 2 SCC 263; State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan [2025] 9
SCR 194 : 2025 SCC OnLine 1702; L&T Housing Financing
Limited v. Trishul Developers (2020) 10 SCC 659; Welfare Assn.,
A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohil [2003] 2 SCR 139 : (2003) 9 SCC 358;
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [2008] 4 SCR 1 : (2008)
6 SCC 1; Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu [1979] 1 SCR
26 : (1979) 2 SCC 34; Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana
[2016] 10 SCR 1 : (2017) 12 SCC 1; Jayant Verma v. Union of
208
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
India [2018] 2 SCR 679 : (2018) 4 SCC 743; Rajendra Diwan v.
Pradeep Kumar Ranibala [2019] 17 SCR 1089 : (2019) 20 SCC
143 - referred to.
Attorney-General for Ontario v. The Hamilton Street Railway
Company and Ors. [1903] A.C. 524 - referred to.
List of Acts
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Constitution of India; Rules of Procedure
of the Rajya Sabha; Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.
List of Keywords
First proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968; Article 217
read with Article 124 of the Constitution of India; Allegations of
misbehaviour against the Judge, Serving Judge of the Delhi High
Court; Burnt currency notes allegedly discovered; Impeachment;
In-House Procedure; Notices of motion given on the same day in
both Houses; Constitution of a Joint Committee; Refusal to admit
the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House; Admission of
the motion by the Presiding Officer of the other House; Draft
decision prepared by the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha;
Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse
the motion; Notice of motion given to the Chairman is not "in
order"; notices of motion; Doctrine of necessity; Reputational
injury.
Case Arising From
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1233
of 2025
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, Jayant Mehta, Siddharth Aggarwal,
Sr. Advs., Ms. Stuti Gujraj, Vaibhav Niti, Ms. Devanshi Singh,
Keshav Sehgal, Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Vishwajeet Singh,
Abhinav Sekhri, Kartikeye Dang, Adarsh Joshi.
Adv. for the Respondent(s):
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Aman Mehta, Ms. Astha Singh.
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
209
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
INDEX
PREFACE .................................................................................
2
FACTS ......................................................................................
2
PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF A JUDGE .........................
6
THE CONUNDRUM .................................................................
11
SUBMISSIONS .........................................................................
13
ISSUES .....................................................................................
13
ANALYSIS .................................................................................
14
Issue I : How must the first proviso be construed? .........
14
Issue II : Whether the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya
Sabha was competent to refuse the motion? ..................
19
Issue III: What is the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman's
refusal to admit the motion on the validity of the Speaker's
action under Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act? ..................
29
What, if the order of the Deputy Chairman, was to
be held illegal? .........................................................
29
The Prejudice Angle - need not be tested ..............
32
Effect of not challenging the decision of the Deputy
Chairman ..................................................................
35
Issue IV: Draft decision prepared by the Secretary-General
of the Rajya Sabha - whether justified in law? ...............
39
SO FAR ....................................................................................
44
Issue V : Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief? ....
45
CONCLUSION ..........................................................................
45
APPENDIX- I .............................................................................
46
APPENDIX- II ...........................................................................
52
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
210
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
PREFACE
1.
This writ petition tasks us to decide an important question relating
to proper interpretation of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act,
19681, which hitherto has never emerged. Petitioner, a High Court
Judge, contends that the procedure prescribed for the constitution
of a Committee under Section 3 of the Inquiry Act has not been
followed, thereby infringing his Fundamental Rights.
FACTS
2.
Facts in brief, relevant for deciding this writ petition, are these.
The incident
2.1 While serving as a Judge of the Delhi High Court, a fire occurred
at the petitioner's residence on 14th March, 2025. During the
course of dousing the fire, burnt currency notes were allegedly
discovered at his house. Following this incident, allegations of
misbehaviour were levelled against the petitioner. In accordance
with the "In-House Procedure" adopted by the Supreme Court
in its Full Court meeting of 15th December, 1999, the Chief
Justice of India2 constituted a three-member committee on 22nd
March, 2025 to examine the allegations. The three-member
committee submitted its report to the CJI on 3rd May, 2025,
recording that the allegations were substantiated and that they
warranted initiation of proceedings for the petitioner's removal
from office. In terms of the procedure, the CJI then forwarded
the report to the Hon'ble President3 and the Hon'ble Prime
Minister of India.
Precursor Litigation
2.2 Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition4 before this Court,
challenging Paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of the In-House Procedure,
the forwarding of the report of the three-member committee by
1
Inquiry Act
2
CJI
3
President
4
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
211
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
the CJI, and the report itself. Four days after the said petition
was filed, i.e., on 21st July, 2025, the Monsoon Session of
the Parliament commenced. During this session, Members of
both Houses, desirous of initiating proceedings for removal of
the petitioner from office, gave two notices of motion in their
respective Houses on the same day (21st July, 2025). In the
following part of this judgment, we will discuss, inter alia, the
process of removal of a Judge from office, the notices that are
required to be given, and the consequences of such notices
being given on the same day.
2.3 It is, however, apposite to note that the petitioner's writ petition
was dismissed on 7th August, 2025, by a two-Judge Bench
of this Court of which one of us (Dipankar Datta];') was a
member.
Notices of motion seeking removal of the petitioner from office:
incidents of 21st July, 2025
2.4 Invoking the provisions of the Inquiry Act, a notice was given on
21st July, 2025, of a motion signed by more than 100 members
in the Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President
praying for the petitioner's removal. The said notice was received
by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha at 12:30 p.m., but was not
admitted on the same day.
2.5 After a brief interval, between 4:07 p.m. and 4:19 p.m., a notice
for the same purpose, signed by more than 50 members, was
given in the Rajya Sabha. The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
addressed the House regarding the said notice. In his speech,
among other matters, the Chairman noted that a similar notice
may have been given in the Lok Sabha. Referring to the proviso
to Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act (which requires the constitution
of a Committee by the Presiding Officers of both Houses of the
Parliament when notices of motion for the removal of a Judge
are given in both Houses on the same day), the Chairman
directed that "the Secretary-General will take necessary steps
in this direction".
2.6 Notably, the Chairman resigned from his office of the VicePresident of India later that day (21st July, 2025).
212
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.7 Pursuant to the direction of the then Chairman, the Secretariat
of the Rajya Sabha requested information from its counterpart
in the Lok Sabha as to whether such a notice had indeed
been given, to which the response was in the affirmative.
Following this, the notice given in the Rajya Sabha was sent
to the Members' Salaries & Allowances Branch of the Rajya
Sabha Secretariat for verification of the signatures of the notice
givers. Out of the 62 notice givers, the signatures of three did
not match their specimen signatures.
Consideration of the Notice by the Secretary General and nonadmission by Deputy Chairman
2.8 On 11th August, 2025, the notice given in the Rajya Sabha was
scrutinized by its Secretary-General, who observed various
deficiencies therein and held it to be not "in order." The draft
decision of the Secretary-General was then placed before the
Deputy Chairman, discharging the functions of the Chairman in
his absence, who concurred with the conclusion and accordingly
recorded that the notice was "not admitted". This decision was
communicated to the Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha on
the same day.
Admission of notice by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and
constitution of Committee
2.9 On 12th August, 2025, having received the communication that
the notice had not been admitted by the Deputy Chairman
(performing the duties of the office of Chairman), the Speaker
of the Lok Sabha proceeded to admit the notice given in the
Lok Sabha on 21st July, 2025. The Speaker announced this
admission in the House and, in accordance with Section 3(2)
of the Inquiry Act, constituted a three-member Committee5.
2.10 The Committee subsequently served upon the petitioner the
memo of charges. There is some dispute as to whether all the
materials that are sought to be relied upon have been furnished
or not. That, however, is not a matter for our consideration.
5
Committee
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
213
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF A JUDGE
3.
For a clearer understanding of the arguments advanced referring to
the Constitutional and the statutory provisions relatable to removal
of a Judge from office, we consider it apposite to first outline the
process for such removal.
4.
Article 124 of the Constitution of India provides for "Establishment
and constitution of Supreme Court". Clause (4)6 thereof provides
that a Judge of the Supreme Court can be removed from office by
the order of the President. It further lays down two conditions for
removal: first, that the Judge must be guilty of "proved misbehaviour
or incapacity"; and second, that the resolution for removal must
be passed in each House of Parliament "by a majority of the total
membership of that House and by a majority of not less than twothirds of the members of that House present and voting". From this,
it is clear that a "resolution" is to be moved in each House of the
Parliament and that misbehaviour or incapacity must be "proved".
Article 124, however, does not specify the procedure for presenting
such an address, who may move it, how it is to be moved, or for
investigating allegations against a Judge. Clause (5)7, however,
empowers the Parliament to regulate these procedural aspects by
law. In exercise of this power, the Parliament, in the nineteenth year
of the Republic, enacted the Inquiry Act.
5.
The procedure applicable for removal of a Judge of the Supreme
Court is also applicable for removal of a High Court Judge, as adopted
under sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution.
6.
On a reading of the relevant provisions, we find that the process
of removal of a Judge is indeed a tedious one involving various
stages. The process for removal of a Judge, as envisaged in the
Constitution and the Inquiry Act, is discussed below for completeness
of understanding.
6
(4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President
passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership
of that House and by a majority of not less than two - thirds of the members of that House present and
voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of
proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
7
(5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the
investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).
214
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Stage I: Introduction of Motion & Admission by Speaker/Chairman
6.1 Section 3(1) of the Inquiry Act provides that to initiate the process
for removal of a Judge, a notice must be given of a motion for
presenting an address to the President praying for removal of
such Judge. The said notice may be given in any house of the
Parliament. In the Lok Sabha, the said notice must be signed
by at least 100 of its members. A minimum of 50 signatories is
required in the case of the Rajya Sabha. Once such a notice
has been given, it is for the Speaker (if the motion is given in
the Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (if the motion is given in the
Rajya Sabha) to take a call on admission of the motion.
6.2 The Speaker or the Chairman may either admit or reject the
motion after "consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit
and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available
to him" [see: Section 3(1) of the Inquiry Act]. If the motion is
not admitted, it brings down the curtain; if accepted, then the
Committee [referred to in Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act] is to
be formed for taking the process ahead. User of the modal
verb "may" in Section 3(1) suggests that the Speaker or the
Chairman, as the case may be, is vested with a discretion
whether or not to admit the motion.
Stage II: Formulation of a Committee of three members for making
investigation
6.3 Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act provides that once a notice is
admitted, the motion is to be kept pending, and the Speaker
or the Chairman is required to constitute a Committee for the
purpose of investigating the grounds on which the removal of a
Judge is sought. The Committee shall consist of three members:
one chosen from among the Chief Justice and other Judges
of the Supreme Court, who would preside over the meetings
of the committee8; one chosen from among the Chief Justices
of the High Courts; and one person who, in the opinion of the
Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman, is a distinguished
jurist.
8
Rule 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
215
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
6.4 The second proviso to Section 3(2) provides that if notices
have been given in both Houses of the Parliament, albeit on
different dates, the notice submitted later in point of time shall
stand rejected. Consequently, in such a case, the Committee
shall be constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, wherever notice is given prior
in point of time.
6.5 The first proviso to Section 3(2) contemplates a situation in
which notices are given in both Houses on the same day. In
such a case, "no Committee shall be constituted unless the
motion has been admitted in both Houses; and where such
motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee
shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman".
Thus, this situation calls for the formation of a Joint Committee.
It is this provision that forms the fulcrum of the dispute in the
present case, and we propose to address the same a little
later.
Stage III: Formulation of Charges and Investigation
6.6 The Committee is required to frame definite charges against the
Judge proceeded against; provide such Judge with a statement
of the grounds on which such charges are based; afford him a
reasonable opportunity of being heard; and, where the allegation
relates to physical or mental incapacity, the Committee would
have the power to constitute a Medical Board [see: Sections
3(3), (4), (5), (6), (7) & (8) of the Inquiry Act].
6.7 The Committee, being empowered to regulate its own procedure,
is mandated to afford the Judge a reasonable opportunity to
cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence, and be heard in
his defence [see: Section 4(1) of the Inquiry Act].
Stage IV: Report by the Committee and discussion in Parliament
6.8 After conclusion of the investigation, the Committee must submit
a report to the Speaker or the Chairman or both stating its
findings on each charge. If the committee finds the Judge not
guilty, it is the end of the matter; however, if the finding is of
guilt, the motion for removal is taken up for discussion in the
Parliament. [see: Sections 4 (2) & (3) and 6 of the Inquiry Act].
216
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Stage V: Discussion in the Parliament
6.9 Upon receiving a report that finds the Judge guilty of any
misbehaviour or suffering from any incapacity, the motion-which
has been kept pending-shall be taken up for consideration by
the House(s) of Parliament in which it was pending, together
with the report of the Committee. Both Houses, after discussion,
shall either adopt or reject the motion in accordance with the
numerical requirements prescribed under Article 124(4) of the
Constitution, namely, "by a majority of the total membership of
that House and by a majority of not less than two - thirds of the
members of that House present and voting". When the motion
is adopted by both Houses, the "misbehaviour or incapacity of
the Judge shall be deemed to have been proved".
Stage VI : Order of the President
6.10 As is required by Article 124(4), a Judge can be removed
only "by an order of the President". Thus, after a motion has
been passed by both houses, it is the President's order which
results in removal of a Judge from office.
THE CONUNDRUM
7.
Proviso 1 to Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act reads:
"Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in
sub-section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses
of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless
the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where
such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the
Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and
the Chairman."
8.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the constitution of the Committee solely
by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Since notices under Section 3(1)
of the 1968 Act were given in both Houses on the same day, the
petitioner has contended that the Committee constituted by the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha violates the proviso. According to the
petitioner, since notices were given in both Houses on the same
day, a Joint Committee should have been formed by the Speaker
of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, subject
to the motion having been admitted in both the Houses; and if the
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
217
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
motion fails in any House, the consequence, in his submission, is
that the notice given in the other House must also fail. In essence,
the petitioner's argument is that where notices are given in both
Houses on the same day, and the motion is not admitted in one
House, the Presiding Officer of the other House, i.e., the Speaker
or the Chairman, as the case may be, ceases to have the authority
to proceed with the motion.
9.
On the other hand, the respondents have invited us to interpret the
provision in a manner that facilitates the proceedings for investigation
rather than bringing them to a grinding halt. According to their reading
of the first proviso, the decisive factor is not the mere giving of notices
of motion in both Houses on the same day, but their admission on the
same day. It was contended that even if notices are given in both the
Houses, where the motion is admitted in only one House, that House
remains competent to proceed with the constitution of a Committee
through its Presiding Officer, i.e., the Speaker or the Chairman, as
the case may be, notwithstanding that the motion might have been
rejected by the Presiding Officer of the other House. Drawing our
attention to the documents, since placed on record, the respondents
submitted that the motion was never admitted by the Chairman of
the Rajya Sabha. Consequently, it has been their argument, that the
Committee was validly constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
SUBMISSIONS
10. The written submissions filed by the parties have been made part
of this judgment as appendices.