Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to House Inquiry Panel Formation Under Judges (Inquiry) Act
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute an inquiry committee for his removal. The court emphasized that constitutional safeguards for judges should not paralyze the removal process. Justice Varma argued that since removal notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee was required under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. However, the Bench ruled that because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the notice while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted it, the Speaker acted within his legal autonomy to proceed independently.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court clarified that the rejection of a removal motion in one House does not render the other House incompetent to proceed.
- Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act regarding joint committees applies only if notices are admitted in both Houses.
- The judiciary must balance the protection of judges with the effective functioning of constitutional removal mechanisms.
- Reputational injury to a judge cannot be used to subvert a constitutionally sanctioned statutory process.
Exam Facts
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
- Section 3(2) of the Act pertains to joint committees.
- The ruling was delivered by a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and S.C. Sharma.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.