In a significant ruling touching the sensitive process of judicial accountability, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the decision of the Lok Sabha Speaker to constitute a committee to examine allegations against a sitting High Court judge. The Court rejected the challenge raised by the judge, who had questioned the legality of the Speaker’s action after a parallel notice in the Rajya Sabha was declined.
A Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta made it clear that the constitutional mechanism for judicial removal cannot be stalled due to procedural objections when the law itself permits independent action by either House of Parliament.
Background of the Case
The controversy arose after a fire incident at the judge’s official residence in March 2025, during which burnt currency notes were allegedly found. This led to an in-house inquiry by a committee formed by the Chief Justice of India. The committee reportedly found substance in the allegations and recommended initiation of removal proceedings.
Subsequently, notices seeking removal of the judge were submitted in both Houses of Parliament on the same day-July 21, 2025.
- The Lok Sabha notice, signed by over 100 MPs, was admitted by the Speaker.
- The Rajya Sabha notice, however, was examined by the Deputy Chairman and was not admitted after scrutiny.
This divergence triggered a legal challenge by the judge, who argued that once notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee alone could be formed - and not one solely by the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Read also:- Retirement Can’t Be Rewritten Using Aadhaar: MP High Court Quashes Anganwadi Reinstatement
Key Legal Question Before the Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the Speaker of the Lok Sabha could constitute a committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, when a similar notice had been rejected in the Rajya Sabha.
The petitioner argued that such action violated the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
Court’s Observations
The Bench rejected the petitioner’s interpretation and clarified the scope of the law in clear terms.
“The proviso applies only when motions are admitted in both Houses,” the Court observed.
The judges explained that:
- The law does not require a joint committee merely because notices were filed on the same day.
- A joint committee becomes mandatory only if both Houses admit the motion.
- If one House rejects the motion, the other House is free to proceed independently.
The Court warned that accepting the petitioner’s argument would allow the removal process to be sabotaged easily.
Read also:- Can Law Graduates With Pending Criminal Cases Be Enrolled as Advocates? Madras HC Larger Bench to Decide
“The statute cannot be interpreted in a manner that paralyses the constitutional process,” the Bench said.
Role of the Deputy Chairman Clarified
Another major issue was whether the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had the authority to reject the motion.
The Court firmly upheld his power, noting that:
- Under Article 91 of the Constitution, the Deputy Chairman is fully empowered to act when the Chairman’s post is vacant.
- Constitutional continuity cannot be allowed to collapse due to technical objections.
- The Deputy Chairman’s decision was therefore legally valid.
Rejecting the challenge, the Court remarked:
“Constitutional offices cannot be rendered dysfunctional merely because the primary office-holder is unavailable.”
No Fault Found in Speaker’s Action
The Court further ruled that the Speaker of the Lok Sabha acted strictly in accordance with law while constituting the inquiry committee.
It noted that:
- The Speaker acted only after being informed that the Rajya Sabha notice was not admitted.
- There was no legal bar preventing the Speaker from proceeding.
- The inquiry process had followed the statutory framework laid down under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
Even if the Rajya Sabha decision were hypothetically flawed, the Court held that it would not invalidate the Speaker’s action.
On Alleged Prejudice to the Judge
Addressing the argument of reputational damage and procedural unfairness, the Court observed:
- The inquiry committee does not decide guilt.
- Final removal requires approval of both Houses with a special majority.
- Adequate safeguards exist at every stage.
“The mere constitution of a committee does not cause legal prejudice,” the Bench noted.
Court’s Final Decision
Dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court held:
- The Speaker’s decision to constitute the committee was lawful.
- The Deputy Chairman was competent to reject the Rajya Sabha notice.
- No constitutional or statutory violation was established.
- The petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
With this, the Court cleared the way for the inquiry proceedings to continue.
Case Title: X v. Office of the Speaker of the House of the People
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1233 of 2025
Decision Date: 16 January 2026
