Holding

The first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act requires a joint committee only when notices are admitted in both Houses; the Deputy Chairman is competent to act as Chairman; the Speaker’s constitution of a committee remains valid; the Secretary‑General’s draft decision is not legally justified; and no relief is available under Article 32.

Summary

The petition challenged the constitution of a three‑member inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker after a notice of motion to remove a Delhi High Court judge was admitted in the Lok Sabha but rejected in the Rajya Sabha by the Deputy Chairman, who was acting as Chairman after the Chairman’s resignation. The petitioner argued that the first proviso to section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 required a joint committee whenever notices were given in both Houses on the same day, and that the Deputy Chairman lacked authority to refuse admission. The Court held that the proviso applies only when notices are admitted in both Houses, that the Deputy Chairman is constitutionally competent to act as Chairman, and that the Speaker’s constitution of a committee was valid. It also found the Secretary‑General’s draft decision unjustified and ruled that Article 32 does not permit relief in this procedural matter. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 mandates the constitution of a Joint Committee when notices are given in both Houses on the same day but admitted in only one House
Whether the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, acting as Chairman after the vacancy, was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion
What effect, if any, the Deputy Chairman’s refusal has on the validity of the Speaker’s action under s.3(2) of the Act
Whether the draft decision prepared by the Secretary‑General of the Rajya Sabha stating that the notice was not ‘in order’ is justified in law
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief under Article 32 of the Constitution

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 124(4), s. Article 124(5), s. Article 217, s. Article 32, s. Article 91
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968s. 3(1), s. 3(2)
Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969s. Rule 16, s. Rule 17, s. Rule 2(e)
Rules of Procedure of the Rajya Sabhas. Rule 7, s. Rule 9

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

First proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968Article 217 read with Article 124 of the Constitution of IndiaAllegations of misbehaviour against a judgeBurnt currency notesImpeachment of a judgeIn‑House ProcedureNotices of motion given on the same day in both HousesJoint CommitteeRefusal to admit motion by Presiding OfficerAdmission of motion by Presiding OfficerDraft decision by Secretary‑General of the Rajya SabhaDeputy Chairman competenceDoctrine of necessityReputational injury

Judgment

[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 Vice-
President 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 non-
admission 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 two-
thirds 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. We find reference to numerous
precedents by the parties, which were not cited in course of hearing.
For brevity’s sake, the key arguments have been referred to by us
in the judgment wherever necessary.

ISSUES
11. Based on the arguments advanced during proceedings in Court and
the written submissions filed by the parties, the following questions
arise for our consideration:
I. How should the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act be
construed? Does it 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
218 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Presiding Officer of one House and admission of the motion
by the Presiding Officer of the other House?
II. 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?
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?
IV. 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?
V. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?

ANALYSIS

Issue I : How must the first proviso be construed?
12. Under the heading “Conundrum,” we have examined the differing
views presented before us on the proper construction of the first
proviso. Section 3 of the Inquiry Act, inter alia, prescribes the
procedure to be followed by the Parliament in considering a motion
and in conducting an investigation into the allegations made against
a Judge. The first proviso to Section 3(2) addresses the specific
situation where notices of motion are given in both Houses but on
the same day. There is no dispute that the object of the said proviso
is to provide an additional safeguard to the Judge by requiring the
constitution of a Joint Committee of the Speaker and the Chairman and
to prevent a situation where the Judge is made to attend proceedings
before two separate committees constituted by the Speaker and the
Chairman. The question before us, however, is: when precisely is
this safeguard triggered?
12.1. We are unable to accept the interpretation of the first proviso,
as advanced by Mr. Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, namely, 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 for the following reasons.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 219

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

12.2. 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 said proviso does not prescribe a condition precedent
for the formation of a Committee in cases other than the one
expressly provided.
12.3. In other words, the first proviso is not exhaustive but situational
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 Mr. Rohatgi would require us 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, a course we are neither
empowered nor inclined to undertake.
12.4. It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that a proviso
cannot be read in a way which nullifies the provision to which
it is a proviso9, unless such an intention is manifest. The main
part of Section 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 power of the Speaker or the Chairman
to constitute a Committee remains unaffected.
12.5. 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. The argument, therefore,
lacks any legal foundation. The interpretation advanced by
the petitioner of rejection of a notice in one House resulting
in the notice automatically failing in the other House would
entail consequences of a most serious nature. The members

9 see: A.N. Sehgal v. Raje Ram Sheoran (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 304; Tribhovandas Haribhai Tamboli v.
Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (1991) 3 SCC 442; Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank
Ltd. v. Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Banks Employees Union & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC
574; and Kerala State Housing Board v. Ramapriya Hotels (P) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 672.
220 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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. The absence of any
express provision to that effect is, in our opinion, determinative.
12.6. Looked from another angle, 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.
12.7. Such an interpretation must also be rejected on the ground
that it renders the first proviso open to abuse. It would permit
a situation where, upon getting the wind of a notice of motion
being given for removal of a Judge with a real likelihood of
the same being admitted by the Presiding Officer of one
House, certain members of the other House not inclined to
have the process of removal initiated against the Judge may
deliberately give a defective notice on the same day, solely
with the intention of scuttling the proceedings. Upon such
notice subsequently being found to be defective and not
admitted, the mere fact that such a notice was introduced
on the same day would lead to the first proviso being set
in action mandating constitution of a Joint Committee, as
argued by the petitioner, thereby leading to frustration of
the proceedings in the first House. Furthermore, it is also
possible that upon introduction of the notice of motion in the
second House, the Speaker or the Chairman does not admit
or reject the motion. Such an act, on a literal application of the
first proviso, would be sufficient to trigger the requirement of
Joint Committee. The proviso cannot be allowed to be used
as a weapon for scuttling proceedings or giving a veto to the
Houses of Parliament.
12.8. In our opinion, the mischief which the Inquiry Act sought
to remedy was the absence of a statutory mechanism for
investigating into allegations against a Judge and for facilitating
such investigation. The Inquiry Act cannot be interpreted in a
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 221

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

manner that frustrates this objective by permitting the proviso
to be employed as an instrument of obstruction.
12.9. It has been contended, with considerable emphasis, 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. We are unable to agree with
such contention. In our view, 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.
13. Also, as contended by Mr. Mehta, learned Solicitor General
representing the respondents, the first proviso is intended to obviate
the risk of parallel committees being constituted by the Presiding
Officers of the both Houses of Parliament in a circumstance where
the Presiding Officers of both Houses, unaware of a notice given in
the other, proceeds to admit the motions and constitutes two separate
committees. Highly improbable though it seems to be (unawareness
of the Presiding Officers), we cannot rule out the possibility. Such a
situation would inevitably result in the formation of two committees,
giving rise to a serious possibility of conflicting and inconsistent
conclusions apart from requiring the Judge to face two investigations.
14. Finding ourselves in disagreement with the interpretation proposed
by the petitioner, we hold that the first proviso caters to only one
situation, that is, when notices of motion were given in both Houses
on the same day and were admitted by both Houses (irrespective
of their admission on the same or different dates). Therefore, 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
222 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.

Issue II : Whether the Deputy Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha was competent to refuse the motion?
15. The above issue stems from the contention 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, which has strongly been resisted
by the respondents by contending that the office of the Chairman
having fallen vacant, in terms of the Constitutional scheme, it is
the Deputy Chairman who has to perform the duties of the office
of Chairman.
15.1. Petitioner contended that clause (a) of Section 2 of Inquiry Act
defines Chairman as the Chairman of the Council of States.
The fact that the legislature has used the word “means” and
not the phrase ‘means and includes’ suggests that the definition
is exhaustive. Thus, the Deputy Chairman could not have
usurped the statutory power vested in the Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha and act in his place, and consequently could not
have taken any decision whatsoever concerning the motion.
15.2. Reference was made by Mr. Rohatgi to the rules framed under
the Inquiry Act being the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 196910. After
drawing our attention to Rules 16 and 17, it was argued that
the rules expressly but narrowly enumerate certain functions
that may be discharged by the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy
Chairman in the absence of the Speaker or the Chairman, as
the case may be. Emphasis was laid on the fact that these rules
confer authority only in limited and specified circumstances,
and do not extend to the exercise of powers contemplated
under Section 3 of the Inquiry Act. The legislative intent is clear
that the authority conferred on the Speaker or the Chairman
under the Inquiry Act does not extend to the Deputy Speaker
or the Deputy Chairman, unless expressly provided.

10 Inquiry Rules
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 223

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

15.3. Drawing support from this Court’s decision in Sub-Committee
on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India11, it was
contended that the rules of procedure of the Rajya Sabha
cannot govern the proceedings under the Inquiry Act. The
Inquiry Act operates as a code in itself. Paragraphs 91, 92,
95 and 96 of Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability
(supra) were relied on by him.
15.4. Should in terms of Article 91 the Deputy Chairman were held
empowered to act as the Chairman and decide on the question
of admission of a motion moved by certain members of the
Rajya Sabha, Mr. Rohatgi next expressed an apprehension
that a situation could arise where the Deputy Chairman himself
is a signatory to the notice of motion in his capacity as a
member of the House. In such a circumstance, if the Deputy
Chairman were to take any decision on the motion as the
Presiding Officer, it was feared that he would effectively be
acting as a judge in his own cause.
16. Per contra, Mr. Mehta invited our attention to Part V of the Constitution,
and in particular, Articles 89 and 91. Clause (1) of Article 89 provides
that the Vice-President of India shall be the ex officio Chairman of
the Council of States. Clause (2) thereof provides that the Council of
States shall, as soon as may be, choose a member of the Council
to be the Deputy Chairman.
16.1. Further, he referred to Article 91 of the Constitution. We
can do no better than reproduce it in its entirety for a better
understanding:
91. Power of the Deputy Chairman or other person
to perform the duties of the office of, or to act as,
Chairman:
(1) While the office of Chairman is vacant, or during
any period when the Vice-President is acting as, or
discharging the functions of, President, the duties of
the office shall be performed by the Deputy Chairman,
or, if the office of Deputy Chairman is also vacant,
by such member of the Council of States as the
President may appoint for the purpose.

11 (1991) 4 SCC 699
224 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(2) During the absence of the Chairman from any
sitting of the Council of States the Deputy Chairman,
or, if he is also absent, such person as may be
determined by the rules of procedure of the Council,
or, if no such person is present, such other person
as may be determined by the Council, shall act as
Chairman.
16.2. We were also shown Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Rajya Sabha, framed under Article 118 of the Constitution,
which provides that the Deputy Chairman is elected by the
members of the House. Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure
further delineates the powers of the Deputy Chairman, which
reads as under:
9. The Deputy Chairman or other member competent
to preside over a sitting of the Council under the
Constitution or these rules shall, when so presiding,
have the same power as the Chairman when presiding
over the Council and all references to the Chairman in
these rules shall in these circumstances be deemed
to be, references to any such person so presiding.
(emphasis by counsel)

17. After having considered the constitutional and statutory provisions
and the arguments advanced, we find ourselves in disagreement with
the contention that the Deputy Chairman could not have rejected
the motion.
17.1. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 91, envisage two distinct
scenarios: vacancy and absence, respectively. Clause (1)
applies where the office of the Chairman is vacant or the
Chairman is acting as the President, in which case the Deputy
Chairman performs the duties of the office of the Chairman.
Clause (2), by contrast, applies where the office is not vacant
but the Chairman is merely absent from a sitting, and the
Deputy Chairman only acts as the Chairman for that sitting.
17.2. To read the statute in isolation of the Constitution would be
grossly incorrect. True it is, this Court in Sub-committee
on Judicial Accountability (supra) held that the rules
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 225

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

framed under Article 11812 of the Constitution would not
govern the procedure under the Inquiry Act; however, the
observations were made in the specific context of the issue
which was considered. It is important to notice that neither
Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act nor its proviso was under
consideration.
17.3. We see no reason why Article 91 of the Constitution should
be kept aside when a court is tasked to make a meaningful
interpretation of any provision of the Inquiry Act or, for that
matter, any other enactment. After all, the 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.
17.4. 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 Section 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.
18. As regards Mr. Rohatgi’s apprehension that the Deputy Chairman
may himself be a signatory to the notice, apart from the fact that the
situation posited is purely hypothetical and need not detain us, we
are unable to agree with Mr. Rohatgi on this proposition.
18.1. We find it profitable to refer to the following observations made
by the Privy Council in Attorney-General for Ontario v. The
Hamilton Street Railway Company And Ors.13 as relied

12 Rules of Procedure
Each House of Parliament may make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of this Constitution,
its procedure and the conduct of its business.
…
13 [1903] A.C. 524
226 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

upon by the Constitution Bench in Central Bank of India v.
Workmen14:
…They would be worthless as being speculative
opinions on hypothetical questions. It would be
contrary to principle, inconvenient, and inexpedient
that opinions should be given upon such questions
at all. When they arise, they must arise in concrete
cases, involving private rights; and it would be
extremely unwise for any judicial tribunal to attempt
beforehand to exhaust all possible cases and facts
which might occur to qualify, cut down, and override
the operation of particular words when the concrete
case is not before it.
18.2. Be that as it may, assuming that the Deputy Chairman happens
to be a signatory to the motion, he must, in his administrative
prudence recuse to act as the Deputy Chairman in that case.
After all, the Rules of Procedure of the Rajya Sabha, under Rule
8, do provide for a panel of Vice-Chairmen to be nominated by
the Chairman, who would act in the absence of the Chairman
as well as the Deputy Chairman.
18.3. That apart, if at all such a situation arises, the doctrine
of necessity could also compel the Deputy Chairman, or
whosoever is the incumbent acting in place of the Chairman,
to exercise the functions of the Chairman in his place.
18.4. Doctrine of necessity, as elaborated by a 3-Judge Bench of
this Court in Election Commission of India v. Subramaniam
Swamy15 would make it clear that despite the apprehension of
a possible bias, the decision-making authority must proceed to
adjudicate the issue in the interest of necessity. The relevant
portion of the decision reads thus:
16. We must have a clear conception of the doctrine.
It is well settled that the law permits certain things
to be done as a matter of necessity which it would

14 1959 SCC OnLine SC 1
15 (1996) 4 SCC 104
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 227

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of
judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of
necessity makes it imperative for the authority to
decide and considerations of judicial propriety must
yield. It is often invoked in cases of bias where there
is no other authority or Judge to decide the issue.
If the doctrine of necessity is not allowed full play in
certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the
course of justice itself and the defaulting party would
benefit therefrom. Take the case of a certain taxing
statute which taxes certain perquisites allowed to
Judges. If the validity of such a provision is challenged
who but the members of the judiciary must decide
it. If all the Judges are disqualified on the plea that
striking down of such a legislation would benefit
them, a stalemate situation may develop. In such
cases the doctrine of necessity comes into play.
If the choice is between allowing a biased person
to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice
must fall in favour of the former as it is the only way
to promote decision-making. In the present case
also if the two Election Commissioners are able
to reach a unanimous decision, there is no need
for the Chief Election Commissioner to participate,
if not the doctrine of necessity may have to be
invoked.
(emphasis ours)

19. The argument touching upon the provisions of Rule 16 and 17 of
the Inquiry Rules, howsoever appealing, is without merit and must
be rejected. The Inquiry Rules envisage a possible absence of the
Chairman whereas the Constitution provides for the Deputy Chairman
in the event of the office of Chairman being vacant. Similar is the
case for the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Hence, when the
statute is silent on a particular aspect, the Constitution and the
doctrine of silence, must be read into the statute to fill its gaps. The
Constitution is the supreme and overarching legal framework, to
which all statutes must conform. For an elaborate understanding, it
would be profitable to refer to a decision of this Court in Vipulbhai
228 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Coop. Milk Mktg. Federation Ltd16, which
expounded the law in the following terms:
24. No doubt, in the cases referred to above, the respective
Acts contained a provision regarding no confidence. What
about a situation where there is no express provision
regarding no confidence? Once the cooperative society
is conferred a constitutional status, it should rise to the
constitutional aspirations as a democratic institution. So,
it is for the respective legislative bodies to ensure that
there is democratic functioning. When the Constitution
is eloquent, the laws made thereunder cannot be silent.
If the statute is silent or imprecise on the requirements
under the Constitution, it is for the court to read the
constitutional mandate into the provisions concerned and
declare it accordingly. Article 243-ZT has given a period
of one year to frame/reframe the statutes in consonance
with Part IX-B and thereafter i.e. with effect from 12-1-
2013, those provisions which are inconsistent with Part
IX-B, cease to operate.
25. Silence in the Constitution and abeyance as well has
been dealt extensively by Michael Foley in his celebrated
work The Silence of Constitutions. To quote from the
Preface:
“Abeyances refer to those constitutional gaps
which remain vacuous for positive and constructive
purposes. They are not, in any sense, truces between
two or more defined positions, but rather a set of
implicit agreements to collude in keeping fundamental
questions of political authority in a state of irresolution.
Abeyances are, in effect, compulsive hedges against
the possibility of that which is unresolved being
exploited and given meanings almost guaranteed
to generate profound division and disillusionment.
Abeyances are important, therefore, because of their
capacity to deter the formation of conflicting positions
in just those areas where the potential for conflict is

16 (2015) 8 SCC 1
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 229

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

most acute. So central are these abeyances, together
with the social temperament required to sustain them,
that when they become the subject of heightened
interest and subsequent conflict, they are not merely
accompanied by an intense constitutional crisis, they
are themselves the essence of that crisis.”
In Part II, Chapter Four, the author has also dealt with
the constitutional gaps and the arts of prerogative. To the
extent relevant, it reads as follows (p. 82):
“Gaps in a constitution should not be seen as simply
empty space. They amount to a substantial plenum of
strategic content and meaning vital to the preservation
of a constitution. Such interstices accommodate
the abeyances within which the sleeping giants of
potentially acute political conflict are communally
maintained in slumber. Despite the absence of any
documentary or material form, these abeyances are
real, and are an integral part of any constitution. What
remains unwritten and indeterminate can be just as
much responsible for the operational character and
restraining quality of a constitution as its more tangible
and codified components.”
26. Where the Constitution has conceived a particular
structure on certain institutions, the legislative bodies
are bound to mould the statutes accordingly. Despite the
constitutional mandate, if the legislative body concerned
does not carry out the required structural changes in the
statutes, then, it is the duty of the court to provide the
statute with the meaning as per the Constitution. “[T]he
job of the Supreme Court is not to expound the meaning
of the Constitution but to provide it with meaning.” [
Walter Berns, “Government by Lawyers and Judges”,
Commentary, June 1987, 18.] The reference obviously
is to the United States Supreme Court. As a general rule
of interpretation, no doubt, nothing is to be added to or
taken from a statute. However, when there are adequate
grounds to justify an inference, it is the bounden duty of
the court to do so.
230 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“… It is a corollary to the general rule of literal
construction that nothing is to be added to or taken
from a statute unless there are adequate grounds
to justify the inference that the legislature intended
something which it omitted to express.” [Maxwell on
Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn.) 33.]
According to Lord Mersey in Thompson (Pauper) v. Goold
and Co. [1910 AC 409 (HL)] : (AC p. 420)
“… It is a strong thing to read into an Act of Parliament,
words which are not there, and in the absence of
clear necessity it is a wrong thing to do.”
In the case of cooperative societies, after the Ninety-seventh
Amendment, it has become a clear or strong necessity
to do the strong thing of reading into the legislation, the
constitutional mandate of the cooperative societies to be
governed as democratic institutions.
“45. … The constitutional provisions have to be
construed broadly and liberally having regard to the
changed circumstances and the needs of time and
polity.” [ The Constitutional Bench decision in State
of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, p. 591, para 45 : (2010)
2 SCC (Cri) 401]
20. History is replete with such instances where, in absence of the
constitutionally delineated office, the deputy or the in-charge
incumbent has performed the functions relatable to the constitutional
office. The idea behind it is that vacancy or absence, for whatever
reason, may not bring the constitutional machinery to a standstill.
Ultimately, the show must go on to ensure that institutional continuity
is maintained. We may take judicial notice of a couple of historic
events. For instance, when former President Dr. Zakir Hussain
passed away while in office on 3rd May, 1969, Vice President V.V.
Giri was sworn in as the Acting President. Later, when Vice President
V.V. Giri resigned to contest for the presidential election, Hon’ble
Mohammad Hidayatullah, the then CJI acted as the President of
India. While acting as such, His Lordship appointed Shri Shanti
Swaroop Dhavan as the Governor of West Bengal. Similarly, when
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 231

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

the former President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed passed away on 11th
February, 1977 while in office, the then Vice President Sri B.D. Jatti
acted as the President and performed all the presidential functions,
including appointment of Judges. Pointedly, Sri B.D. Jatti, as the acting
President, appointed Sri Manoj Kumar Mukherjee in June, 1977 as
an Additional Judge of the High Court at Calcutta (who then went
on to serve as the Chief Justices of the Allahabad High Court and
the Bombay High Court, and was later elevated as a Judge of this
Court). Obviously, such appointments could not have been nullified
on the ground that the acting President, and not the President, had
made such appointments.
21. If we were to read the law in the manner proposed by Mr. Rohatgi,
we would be left with a constitutional vacuum which, in the absence
of the Chairman of the Council of States, or the Speaker of the House
of People, as the case may be, would render the provisions of the
Inquiry Act otiose in the given circumstance.
22. Thus, Issue II framed above must be answered in the affirmative;
we unhesitatingly hold that the Deputy Chairman was competent to
consider the notice and refuse admission of the motion.

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?

What, if the order of the Deputy Chairman, was to be held illegal?
23. Although the petitioner has not, as such, mounted any challenge
to the decision of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha in not
admitting the motion, having regard to the gamut of arguments made,
we deem it appropriate to proceed on the premise that the refusal
of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to admit the motion is
illegal (on a ground other than competence), and to examine what,
if at all, would turn on such assumption. Prefatorily, we clarify that
this exercise is to demonstrate that even on such a hypothetical
plank, the edifice of the petitioner’s case does not materially improve.
24. In brief, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot follow, for the
simple reason that the validity of the Speaker’s action does not
hinge upon the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by
the Deputy Chairman.
232 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. As discussed by us in the preceding segment, 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.
26. The logical culmination, thus, is 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.
27. What, then, would be the consequence of holding the refusal by the
Deputy Chairman to be bad in law?
27.1. 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.
27.2. Next, we ponder as to what is the error, if any, committed by
the Speaker in this case. Facts noticed, reveal that the Speaker
proceeded to constitute the Committee only after receiving an
official communication that the notice given in the Rajya Sabha
was not admitted by its Presiding Officer. The Speaker, in such
a case, was adequately empowered to proceed in conformity
with Section 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Inquiry Act.
27.3. Viewed from the perspective of parliamentary functioning,
members of the Lok Sabha who initiated the motion were
exercising constitutional responsibility in terms of Article
124(4). Upon valid admission of their motion by the Speaker,
they acquired a statutory entitlement to have the matter
examined by a duly constituted committee. To interpret the
statute in a manner that nullifies this entitlement due to
procedural infirmities, assumed or real, in the other House,
would tantamount to curtailing the participatory rights of
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 233

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

elected representatives without statutory warrant. Per contra,
the members of the Rajya Sabha suffer no prejudice, by the
Speaker’s action. They did have a right in law to claim that the
notice given in the Rajya Sabha be dealt with in accordance with
law by the competent authority. If at all they felt prejudiced, the
decision of the Deputy Chairman refusing to admit the motion
could have been laid to challenge by them. We assume that
they did not prefer to challenge the decision because their
purpose of having an inquiry conducted under the Inquiry Act
stood fructified, once the Speaker admitted the motion of the
Lok Sabha members and constituted the Committee.
28. Thus, 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 (discussed in detail hereafter).

The Prejudice Angle – need not be tested
29. With fervour, Mr. Mehta argued that the petitioner has not shown that
any “demonstrable, gross or real prejudice” is caused to him owing
to the Deputy Chairman’s decision not to admit the motion and that,
in fact, such a decision operated to his benefit. The mere loss of a
Joint Committee, absent mala fides or tangible disadvantage, does
not amount to legal prejudice.
30. On the other hand, Mr. Rohatgi, by referring to the celebrated decision
in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan17 submitted that prejudice caused
need not be separately established; non-observance of principles of
natural justice is by itself sufficient proof of prejudice. He reminded
us of the oft-quoted observation of Hon’ble O. Chinappa Reddy, J.
(as His Lordship then was) that “(I)t ill comes from a person who
has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is
not prejudiced”.
31. We have heard arguments that initiation of proceedings against the
petitioner has caused irreparable reputational and constitutional

17 (1980) 4 SCC 379
234 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

prejudice and that the doctrine of “no prejudice” cannot apply where
mandatory safeguards are violated. This argument presupposes
illegality in the constitution of the Committee which, for reasons
already discussed, we are unable to accept. 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.
32. Mr. Mehta argued that constitution of a Single-House Committee
instead of a Joint-Committee, on facts and in the circumstances,
does not undermine the fairness of the procedure. We accept this
submission. 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.
33. We also find ourselves in complete accord with Mr. Mehta’s
contention that the ultimate safeguard of Parliamentary approval
under Article 124(4) also remains intact. Germane, it is, to note
that even after the Committee submits its report, the constitutional
and statutory scheme does not render the petitioner remediless or
exposed to automatic consequences. The report, by itself, is neither
determinative nor self-executory. Rather, it merely triggers the next
stage of Parliamentary consideration, where the motion for removal,
kept pending till then, is required to be taken up separately in each
House and can culminate in an address to the President only upon
satisfaction of the rigorous special majority stipulated under Article
124(4) of the Constitution. Thus, in consideration of the edifice of
the parties’ submissions, even from the standpoint of the petitioner,
no vested or accrued right gets defeated.
34. Undoubtedly, the removal of a Judge of a High Court is constitutionally
anchored in Article 217 read with Article 124 of the Constitution, with
the procedural framework being provided by the Inquiry Act. That
said, a grievance raised by a Judge, who, though a constitutional
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 235

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

functionary by virtue of the office held, is nonetheless a public
servant, questioning the desirability, advisability or necessity of
initiating proceedings, or alleging procedural infirmities therein,
partakes the character of a service-related dispute. This Court has,
in a long line of decisions, consistently held that every infraction of
the rules governing discipline and control does not, by itself, vitiate
disciplinary proceedings. A plea founded on infraction of procedure
must necessarily be examined through the prism of prejudice, having
regard to the nature of the rule alleged to have been infracted,
namely, whether it is mandatory or merely directory. Such an enquiry
presupposes the existence of infraction of a governing rule. In the
present case, however, it is unnecessary to undertake such an
exercise, for the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of
any vested or accrued right.

Effect of not challenging the decision of the Deputy Chairman
35. The decision of the Deputy Chairman is not part of the writ petition
because despite the petitioner asking for it, the same was not furnished
to him. In fact, it is the petitioner’s claim that he derived knowledge
of such decision once the counter affidavit to the writ petition came
to be filed by the respondents. Acting in deference to our observation
in Court on 7th January, 2026, the decision of the Deputy Chairman
was placed on record simultaneously with furnishing a copy thereof
to the petitioner.
36. Upon receipt of the decision of the Deputy Chairman together with the
“draft decision” of the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha, no exception
has been taken by the petitioner, in black and white, either by
amending his writ petition or by filing an affidavit obviously because
the decision does not adversely affect him. Rather, the decision is
in the petitioner’s favour in the sense that the Deputy Chairman did
not, inter alia, find sufficient material to substantiate the claim of the
notice givers that a case for removal of the petitioner from office by
proceeding under the Inquiry Act had been set up.
37. However, in course of oral hearing, the thrust of Mr. Rohatgi’s
submission has been that the decision of the Deputy Chairman, for
reasons urged, is non-est; therefore, the clock must be put back
to explore a meeting of minds of the Presiding Officers of the two
Houses for constitution of a Joint Committee.
236 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

38. Acceptance of Mr. Rohatgi’s argument would essentially require us
to not only examine the legality, propriety and/or correctness of the
decision of the Deputy Chairman but to quash the same.
39. The question as to whether a court can quash an order without the
same being subjected to challenge came up for consideration in
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sunita Mehra18. This Court
held:
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this
case is whether there being no challenge to the order of
eviction passed by the Estate Officer under the Act, in the
writ petition was the High Court justified in setting aside
that order in appeal. It was urged that after the order of
eviction was passed the writ petition was not amended
by challenging the order of eviction passed by the Estate
Officer. No ground as regards its invalidity was also stated.
It is not disputed that the writ petition was not amended
after the order of eviction was passed by the Estate
Officer. Even in the letters patent appeal, the order of
eviction was not made to form part of the records of the
case and under such circumstances the Division Bench
of the High Court was not legally justified in setting aside
the order dated 24-2-1982 passed by the Estate Officer.
Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
40. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view. If an order has been
passed to the prejudice or detriment of a suitor and such suitor seeks
to have the order declared invalid and quashed in writ proceedings,
it is imperative that he lays the order to a challenge, makes specific
averments and urges cogent legal grounds to demonstrate its invalidity
to enable him claim relief based thereon. This is required to serve
as a notice to the opponent as to what are the grounds likely to
be urged based whereon the suitor would seek to have the order
quashed. Unless the opponent is put to notice, he cannot, perhaps,
by projecting his own imagination discover all that may be in the
contemplation of the suitor to be used and established against the
opponent. Once put to notice, the opponent is entitled to raise an

18 (2001) 9 SCC 344
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 237

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

effective defence in support of the order under challenge to persuade
the court not to quash it. This is a very basic rule of essential justice,
which serves twin purposes: (i) of abortion of any attempt to spring
surprises at the hearing; and (ii) prevention of miscarriage of justice.
41. In Chandigarh Administration v. Laxman Roller Flour Mills (P)
Ltd.19, this Court succinctly enunciated as follows:
4. A perusal of the relief extracted above shows that the
writ petitioner-respondent never asked for any relief in the
writ petition commanding the Chandigarh Administration
to issue completion certificate in its favour. Learned
counsel for the respondent frankly stated that there is no
allegation in the writ petition to the effect that Chandigarh
Administration has illegally withheld the completion
certificate. It is settled law that unless the allegations are
made in the writ petition and a relief to that effect is also
prayed for in the writ petition, the High Court is not justified
in issuing any order in excess of the relief prayed for in
the writ petition. We are, therefore, satisfied that in the
absence of pleading and prayer in the writ petition, the
High Court fell in error in issuing directions to the appellant
to issue completion certificate to the writ petitioner-
respondent. In such circumstances, we set aside the order
of the High Court to the extent it directs the Chandigarh
Administration to issue completion certificate to the writ
petitioner-respondent. The appeal is thus allowed. There
shall not be any order as to costs.
42. What has been laid down in Sunita Mehra (supra) and Chandigarh
Administration (supra) in relation to exercise of writ power under
Article 226 of the Constitution would equally extend to exercise of
similar powers under Article 32.
43. A profitable reference may be made in this regard to the decision of
this Court in Amina Marwa Sabreen v. State of Kerala20 as far as
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is concerned. Relevant
paragraphs from such decision read as follows:

19 (1998) 8 SCC 326
20 (2018) 14 SCC 193
238 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

14. Reverting to the preliminary objections raised by the
respondent State, as already mentioned above, there is
no reference to the G.O. in the entire writ petition. This
document is not even part of the writ petition. Therefore,
there are no foundational facts and/or pleadings in the writ
petition challenging this G.O. as unconstitutional. More
importantly, there is no prayer in the writ petition seeking
quashing of this G.O. Even when the learned counsel
for the State had pointed out fundamental infirmity in the
writ petition, no attempt was made by the petitioners to
amend the writ petition so as to incorporate challenge to
the said G.O. as well. In the absence of any pleadings
and the prayer seeking quashing of the said G.O., it is not
permissible for the petitioners to seek a relief by making
oral submissions in this behalf.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the writ petition
on the ground of maintainability only as we do not deem it
necessary to go into the issue on merits for lack of pleadings
as well as requisite prayers in this behalf. No costs.
44. Tested on this anvil, the petitioner’s grievance plainly cannot be
addressed. In the absence of any challenge to the decision of the
Deputy Chairman, we find no reason to outlaw it.
45. It is trite that writ jurisdiction is exercised to test the legality of an
existing order, and not to grant relief on the hypothesis that another
authority ought to have acted differently. The Inquiry Act does not
contemplate constitution of two committees by the Presiding Officers
of both Houses, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mehta. Thus, if at all,
two committees are constituted, one each by one Presiding Officer
of a House, to investigate common allegations against a Judge,
any right can accrue to the Judge to question such constitution as
well as the legality of the subsequent process or outcome. This is
because the legal framework does not allow parallel proceedings
by two committees. Such an occurrence could be rare and if the
occasion therefor arises, certainly the court may interfere. However,
that obviously is not the case here. Judicial interference, bearing
in mind the stage the proceedings have reached, would amount to
travelling beyond the pleadings and trenching upon areas where
no enforceable legal injury has yet arisen. The settled limits of
writ jurisdiction do not permit the Court to confer relief in vacuum,
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 239

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

divorced from a direct challenge to the order which is alleged to be
the source of illegality.

Issue IV: Draft decision prepared by the Secretary-General
of the Rajya Sabha – whether justified in law?

46. For the limited purpose of future cases of a similar nature, and for
no other purpose whatsoever, we briefly record our opinion on the
procedure leading to the decision of the Deputy Chairman. It is
clarified in unequivocal terms that this discussion is purely academic
and shall not, directly or indirectly, be relied upon or invoked to claim
any benefit, leverage, or advantage by the petitioner.
47. We were furnished with a certified copy of the decision taken by the
Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha declining to admit the motion.
The document, spanning seven pages, comprises fifteen numbered
paragraphs and one unnumbered paragraph. The fifteen numbered
paragraphs set out what is described as a “draft decision of the
Chair,” concluding that the notice was not “in order,” which was
thereafter placed before the Deputy Chairman for approval. In the
unnumbered paragraph, the Deputy Chairman expressly concurred
with the decision of the Secretary General in the following terms:
“Having carefully considered the facts of the case and legal
position enunciated above, I agree with the conclusion
drawn. The Notice given by Hon’ble MPs is found to be
not in order and, thus, not admitted. Secretary-General,
Lok Sabha, may be informed accordingly.”
48. Upon a reading of the document in open court, we expressed our
prima facie reservations regarding the conduct of the Secretary
General in holding the notice to be not “in order”. The same were not
fully addressed by the submissions advanced by Mr. Mehta. For the
reasons set out in the paragraphs that follow, we are unable to find
a clear legal basis for the course of action adopted by the Secretary
General. To facilitate a clearer understanding of this conclusion, we
deem it appropriate to reproduce paragraph 14 of the said document,
which sets out the reasons on the basis of which the Secretary
General found the notice to be not “in order”:
“11. Pursuant to the directions of the then Chairman, a
closer scrutiny of the said Notice of Motion was undertaken,
which revealed the following deficiencies:
240 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(i) The said Notice of Motion is not drawn in proper
terms to elicit a decision of the House;
(ii) The said Notice of Motion has relied on certain
documents and material facts. However, no such
authenticated copy of these documents and
reports has been enclosed for consideration of
the Chairman, Rajya Sabha.
(iii) The prayer in the said Notice of Motion request
that “the present Motion under section 3(1)(b)
of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 ought to be
admitted in the House”. However, section 3 (1)
(b) of the Act provides that “the Speaker or,
as the case may be, the Chairman may, after
consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks
fit and after considering such materials, if any,
as may be available to him, either admit the
motion or refuse to admit the same”. It may be
seen that section 3 (1) (b) gives discretion to
admit or refuse to admit the Notice of Motion
to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha and not to the
House. Accordingly, an incorrect provision has
been invoked in the prayer in the said Notice
of Motion invoking incorrect provision of the Act
display a casual and cavalier approach to an
extremely serious matter.
(iv) The Notice of Motion also contains certain
factual inaccuracies. In the ‘Sequence of
Events’, it is stated that “… on 3 March,
2025, the three-member In-House Committee
conducted a spot inspection at the site of the
incident, during which electronic evidence was
examined and statement of 55 witnesses were
record (sic. recorded). Based on the findings,
a report was finalized and submitted to the
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India on 5 May 2025.
This 64-page report was published in the public
domain by multiple news portals on 19 June,
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 241

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

2025”. It needs to be seen that the impugned
fire incident at the residence of Justice xxxx
occurred on the night of 14 March, 2025. It
is highly unlikely that the spot inspection could
have taken place on 3rd March, 2025 i.e. the
day before the fire incident. Further, in absence
of any material record appended with their said
Notice of Motion, it is not possible to determine
the veracity of these facts.
(emphasis supplied in original)

49. The material placed by the Secretary General before the Deputy
Chairman raises certain concerns. First, there appears to be an
insistence on the use of ‘proper terms’ for the notice, a requirement
which does not find express recognition in law. Secondly, a
requirement seems to have been read into the law for furnishing
authenticated documents in support of the material facts, which,
particularly in view of documents already in the public domain, may
not have been necessary at that stage. In any event, the substance
of the allegations was required to be considered, as there was no
statutory obligation upon the notice-givers to produce supporting
evidence at that juncture. Thirdly, exception appears to have been
taken to an incorrect reference to a statutory provision, without due
appreciation of the legal position governing the subject. Fourthly,
the Secretary General appears to have examined the correctness of
the facts pleaded, including with reference to certain dates, thereby
traversing beyond the scope of his designated role. 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.
50. It is relevant to note that 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
242 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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.
51. That the Secretary General went beyond a purely administrative
role is apparent from the language employed in the document itself.
The concluding paragraph (paragraph 15) thereof states: “A draft
decision of the Chair, indicating the aforesaid Notice of Motion not
being in order and hence, non est is accordingly placed for approval.
Subject to its approval, a communication would be sent to Secretary-
General, Lok Sabha”. (emphasis ours)
52. Without venturing further into the matter, we consider it appropriate
to note that the manner in which the notice of motion was processed
at the Secretariat level does not fully align with the role contemplated
under law.
53. That said, we repeat, these observations are confined solely to the
procedural aspects noted above and are occasioned by the particular
course of action adopted at the Secretariat level. Since the decision
of the Deputy Chairman declining to admit the motion is not under
challenge, and has been taken independently in accordance with
his constitutional role, these observations do not, in any manner,
impinge upon or affect the validity of that decision.
54. We do hope that no other Judge faces proceedings for his removal
from service on allegations of misbehaviour. Should, at all, there
be an unfortunate recurrence of a Judge prima facie indulging in
misbehaviour and the representatives of the people of the nation
demand an investigation based on allegations of misbehaviour, it
would be just and proper if Secretariat exercises restraint and leaves
it to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya
Sabha, as the case may be, to decide the question of admission
of a motion instead of concluding as to what should be the future
course of action.

SO FAR
Issue I : Does the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act
require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 243

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

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?
¾ No, it does not. 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.
Issue II : Whether the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was
competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion?
¾ Yes, he was.
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?
¾ There is 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.
Issue IV: 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?
¾ No; does not align with the procedure contemplated under
law.

Issue V : Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief?
55. 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.

CONCLUSION
56. For the foregoing reasons, no interference is called for. The present
writ petition stands dismissed.
244 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

APPENDIX- I

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

A. CHALLENGE BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT
1. The Petition challenges the unilateral constitution of the Judges
Inquiry Committee (“JIC”) by the Speaker under Section 3(2) of
the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (the “Act”) on 12.08.2025 after
admitting a motion given in the Lok Sabha on 21.07.2025 seeking
removal of the Petitioner as a Judge, despite a motion presented
in the Rajya Sabha on the same day not having been admitted
(as communicated to retitioner during the course of hearing).
The motion was stated to have been “not admitted” in the Rajya
Sabha on 11.08.2025 pursuant to a scrutiny undertaken by the
Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha and affirmed by the Deputy
Chairman, purportedly seeking to derive authority from Article 91
of the Constitution of India.
2. Petitioner contends that the action of the Speaker is contrary to the
first proviso of Section 3(2) of the Act, thus vitiating the constitution
of the JIC and all consequential proceedings. This, since where
notices of motion are given on the same day before both Houses
of Parliament, the JIC could not have been constituted unless (a)
both Houses had admitted the motions; and (b) a JIC constituted
thereafter jointly by the Hon’ble Speaker and Hon’ble Chairman.
3. It is further submitted that the Deputy Chairman could not have
exercised the powers comprised in Section 3(2) which stands
exclusively reserved in the Hon’ble Chairman as the persona
designata. Article 91 is merely a pro tem measure limited to ensuring
continuity of proceedings in the House and cannot extend to statutory
powers solely exercisable by the Hon’ble Chairman.

B. PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE
4. Contrary to the counter-affidavit, during oral arguments, Respondents
did not challenge the maintainability of the Petition. In any event, it is
settled law that all processes relating to the removal of a Judge under
the Act [up until the point proceedings in the House(s) commence
upon submission of a Report by the JIC] are proceedings outside
the House, amenable to judicial review as these flow from Article
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 245

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

124(5), and not Articles 118, 119 or 122 [Sub-Committee on Judicial
Accountability v. UoI [(1991) 4 SCC 699 - paras 76-79, 81-82, 86,
91 & 93-101].

C. CONSTITUTION OF JIC IS CONTRARY TO LAW
5. Indisputably, the Act is a plenary and comprehensive legislation
referable to Article 124(5) and thus liable to be strictly construed.
The scheme of the Act, broadly, conceives of four different parts to
the process of removal.
a. Introduction [Section 3(1)]: All Members of Parliament have a
right to present notices of motion seeking removal of a Judge.
Where motions are endorsed by a specific number of Members
[100 in the Lok Sabha, 50 in Rajya Sabha], it leads to the next
step — consideration of the motion by the Speaker or Chairman
to decide whether it merits admission.
b. Admission / Rejection [Sections 3(1) and (2)]: The admission or
rejection of a motion is a statutory power of immense moment
and thus vested in two high constitutional functionaries, namely,
the Speaker and Chairman who are to independently assess
and evaluate whether the notice of motion merits admission
and the initiation of further steps under the Inquiry Act.
c. Committee Formation and Report (Sections 3-5): In the event
a motion is admitted, it is kept pending enabling the Hon’ble
Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, to constitute a
three-member committee for inquiring into the allegations. This
committee must conduct an inquiry as per the provisions of
the Act and its Rules and furnish its report within the specified
time-frame.
d. Consideration of Report and Address (Section 6): Only if the
report of the committee recommends the removal of the Judge,
would it then be transmitted for discussion by Members in
the Houses, which may thereafter resolve to present a joint
address to the President of India seeking removal of the Judge
in question.
6. Section 3 constitutes the fulcrum of the legislation, and covers the
entire field of presentation and consideration of motions. Since it
constitutes a constitutional safeguard, it is liable to be interpreted
246 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

strictly. It exhausts all contemplated scenarios on the giving of motions,
namely: (i) motion in one House alone; (ii) motions in both Houses
on ditterent days (in which case the second proviso applies); and
(iii) motions given in both the Houses on the same day (triggering
the first proviso). Undisputedly, in the present case motions were
given on the same day in both the Houses and the challenge thus
centers upon the first proviso.
7. As per the Petitioner, the JIC could not have been constituted unless
both the Speaker and the Chairman had admitted the motions in both
Houses and only thereafter proceeded to constitute the JIC jointly. The
use of double peremptory negatives (“no” committee and “unless”) is
evidence of a manifest intent to underscore its mandatory and non-
derogable character [Fuleshwar Gope v. Uol [2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2610 - para 27; Vijay Narayan Thatte v. State of Maharashtra
(2009) 9 SCC 92 - paras 5, 10, 12, 13, 14 & 15].
8. Since the power to admit a motion stands conferred upon two co-
equal constitutional authorities, the statute mandates concurrence
to avoid conflicting decisions, separate committees coming to be
constituted or parallel inquiries being initiated. A decision not to admit
if taken by one of those authorities would undoubtedly cast a cloud
of invalidity on the other. It is these considerations which inform the
mandate of concerted action.
9. Implicit in the first proviso is the situation where one motion is
rejected and one admitted. In such a situation the motion would
clearly fail and cannot be proceeded with. Lapsing of a motion is
a consequence that follows not only from the plain and exhaustive
words of the proviso but also from the fact that both the Houses
are equal and the determination of the Speaker and Chairman (as
the case may be) to not admit a motion cannot be overridden or
overruled by a contrary view of the other functionary. To read the
proviso as not providing for that consequence would mean that
Section 3 is incomplete.
10. It would be incorrect and inconceivable to assume that Parliament was
either not cognizant or unaware of such a possibility or conundrum
even though it chose to introduce a specific provision to deal with
motions presented on the same date and promulgated a complete
and exhaustive code. Legislative oversight cannot be readily assumed
or inferred.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 247

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

11. The admission of both motions is not liable to be read as a condition
precedent for the applicability of the first proviso. This condition is
indelibly linked to the expression ‘no committee shall be constituted…’.
If the Inquiry Act were to be interpreted in any other manner, it would
compel one to hold that it fails to provide for a situation where one
of the motions presented on the same day is rejected. This, despite
the Inquiry Act having been acknowledged to be a complete code,
a comprehensive legislation on the subject of removal, and Section
3 thereof constituting its center piece.
12. Respondents’ interpretation that the first proviso applies only
when both motions are “admitted” is wrong. This interpretation
seeks to introduce the phrase ‘given and admitted’ into the statute
and contradicts settled principles of statutory interpretation [G
Narayanaswami v. G Pannerselvam, (1972) 3 SCC 717 – para
18-20]. This more so since adhering to the plain text of the
statute does not lead either to absurdity or to any unworkable
situations.
13. Respondents’ contention that there is no prejudice caused due
to non-compliance with the statute cannot be countenanced
[S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379]. The doctrine
of prejudice or useless formality has no application to mandatory
statutory safeguards and more so when we are concerned with
salutary constitutional safeguards. Petitioner is facing removal
proceedings even though one of the two similar and identical
motions were found not to warrant further consideration. The mere
fact that an adverse report may ultimately be placed before both
Houses cannot justify a Judge being subjected to a process which
is constitutionally infirm and unwarranted. Additionally, the mere right
of addressing both Houses at a belated stage cannot overcome the
prejudice caused. Last but not the least, the reputational damage
caused as a result of the impugned proceedings is prejudice in
itself.

D. CONSIDERATION OF RAJYA SABHA MOTION IS CONTRARY
TO LAW
14. The Rajya Sabha motion was “not admitted” by the Deputy Chairman
on 11.08.2025. No formal order to this effect has been communicated
or supplied to Petitioner. The file notings supplied demonstrate
248 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

that the consideration on the motion was by the Secretary General
(Respondent No. 2) and merely “affirmed” by the Deputy Chairman.
15. Petitioner submits that the Deputy Chairman lacked authority to
exercise any powers in respect of the motion given on 21.07.2025.
The Act defines “Chairman” and “Speaker” exhaustively by using the
categorical “means”, rather than the fluid or expansive “means and
includes”. The use of “means” is intended to be an explicit statement
of the full connotation of a term, thus, leaving no room for ambiguity.
The definitions (absent in the Bill) were included in the Act to “ensure
and maintain the independence of the judiciary” [Joint Committee
Report on the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 1964]. Where any role was
perceived for the Deputies, it had been specifically carved out (See
Rules 16 & 17, Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969) and which too is plainly
a limited, expressly defined role, confined to proceedings in the
House after the submission of the JIC Report.
16. Article 91 confers only limited, pro tem authority relating to proceedings
in the House and cannot extend to statutory functions under the Act.
Parliament was conscious of Article 91 and still adopted exhaustive
definitions under the Act reserving admission powers in the Speaker/
Chairman alone as persona designata. The Parliament appears to
have been guided inter alia by Article 100 which gives only a casting
vote to the Speaker/Chairman (unlike a member of the House including
the Deputy Chairman who can sign the motion and vote on it if the
Report calls for removal of the Judge).
17. Further, unlike Article 65(3) which effects a complete substitution
of authority, Article 91 envisages only a pro tem role. Accepting
the Respondents’ contention would mean that any other member”
temporarily presiding over House proceedings (in the absence of
the Deputy Chairman) could also exercise powers under Section 3.
This would clearly be contrary to the import and intent of the
statute.
Therefore, Petitioner submits that for all the reasons set out above.
the constitution of the JIC is liable to be declared non est, and this
Hon’ble Court ought to allow the present petition.

Filed on: 12.01.2026
Place: New Delhi.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 249

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

APPENDIX- II

SHORT NOTE

ON BEHALF OF TUSHAR MEHTA, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF
INDIA

A. PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS

1. The Petitioner has assailed the action of the Hon’ble Speaker
admitting the notice of motion on 12.08.2025 and the constitution
of a three-member Inquiry Committee under Section 3(2) of the
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (“Act”). It is the Petitioner’s case that
since notices of motion were “given” in both Houses on the same
day, the proviso to Section 3(2) mandated that no Committee could
be constituted unless the motion was admitted in both Houses
and, if admitted, the Committee must be constituted jointly by the
Speaker and the Chairman.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the Writ Petition is misconceived and
founded on an erroneous reading of the statutory scheme. At the
outset, the Respondents’ have divided their arguments broadly on
the following four issues :
a. The proviso to Section 3(2) of the Act is attracted only where
the motions are “admitted” in both Houses, and not just being
“given”
b. In any event, the Petitioner demonstrates no real, demonstrable
and gross prejudice so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Hon’ble Court under Article 32; and
c. The Rajya Sabha motion was, upon scrutiny, expressly “not
admitted” by the Deputy Chairman, who was validly acting as
the Chairman under Article 91 when the office fell vacant and
was constitutionally and statutorily permitted to exercise such a
power. This order is not and could not have been challenged.

B. INTERPRETATION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 3(2)
3. It is respectfully submitted that Articles 121 and 211 of the Constitution
prohibit any discussion in the House with regard to the conduct of
any judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, except upon a
250 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the
removal of the Judge. A perusal of Article 124(4) read with Article
217 and 218, makes it crystal clear that a Judge of the Supreme
Court or the High Court cannot be removed from office except on
the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
4. Therefore, the constitutional scheme for removal of a Judge
culminating in an order of the Hon’ble President is passed only
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 present and voting,
ensuring stringent thresholds that operate as a substantive inbuilt
safeguard. It ensures that such motions for removal of Judges are
not initiated in a routine manner and that the process is insulated
against proceedings founded on frivolous allegations, extraneous
considerations or patently false claims.
5. It is thus respectfully submitted that by virtue of Article 122, these
notices of motion cannot be impugned in a court of law as long as
they do not contravene any constitutional or statutory mandate.
6. The Act incorporates an important safeguard in Section 3(1) by
drawing a clear distinction between a motion being “given” and its
subsequent “admission”. A motion does not automatically set the
statutory machinery in motion merely upon being “given”. It is only
upon “admission” that the statutory consequence of constituting a
three-member Committee follows. The Legislature has, therefore,
consciously used two distinct expressions, and the language
employed is the determinative factor of the legislative intention. At
this stage, it is also pertinent to note that, as per Rule 2(e) of the
Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969, “motion” is defined to mean the motion
admitted under Section 3(1).
7. As per Section 3(1) of the Act, “giving” a motion is essentially
a ministerial act of presentation/filing, whereas “admission” is
a substantive, independent decision that necessarily entails due
scrutiny and application of mind by the Speaker or the Chairman after
consulting such person, if any, as he thinks fit. Thus, the Speaker
or the Chairman has an option either to admit the motion or refuse
to admit the motion.
8. This Hon’ble Court in P.D. Dinakaran (2) v. Judges Inquiry
Committee, (2011) 8 SCC 474 had held that the Speaker/Chairman, is
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 251

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

not bound to admit the motion submitted with the requisite numerical
strength as a matter of course because he had the discretion under
the Act to consult such persons as he may think fit and consider
any material which is made available to him before taking a decision
on the admission of motion. This Hon’ble Court also held that, in a
given case, he may even choose to refuse to admit the motion.21
9. It is crucial to highlight that this Hon’ble Court in Sarojini Ramaswami
(Mrs) v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC 506 has also held the following:
95. “.....The law so enacted under Article 124(5) provides
that any accusation made against a sitting judge to enable
initiation of the process of his removal from office has to
be only by not less than the minimum number of Members
of Parliament specified in the Act, all other methods being
excluded. On initiation of the process in the prescribed
manner, the Speaker/Chairman is to decide whether the
accusation requires investigation. If he chooses not to
act on the accusation made in the form of motion by the
specified minimum number of Members of Parliament,
the matter ends there. On the other hand, if the Speaker/
Chairman, on a consideration of the materials available
and after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, forms
the opinion that a prima facie case for investigation
into the accusation against the Judge is made out, he
constitutes a Committee of judicial functionaries in
accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act.”
10. If this condition of an independent application of mind with an order
“admitting” the motion is not read, there is a possibility of members
gathering mere requisite numerical strength “filing” motions even on
the basis of some unpopular judgment given by a Judge resulting
in the appointment of a Committee. Such a reading of Section 3(1)
would render a mere achievement of numerical strength as the only
condition precedent for forming a Committee under Section 3(2),
rendering the second part of Section 3(1) otiose.
11. Further, it is humbly submitted that in the absence of a mandatory
requirement of independent scrutiny culminating in a formal order of

21 Paragraphs 26 & 31 of P.D. Dinakaran (2). See also Krishna Swami v. Union of India, (1992) 4 SCC
605 ¶45.
252 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“admitting” the motion, the statutory safeguard would be rendered
illusory. Mere fulfilment of the numerical strength of the members
could trigger the process of removal by simply “giving” the notice
of motion, even on the basis of an unpopular judgment given by a
Judge, thereby mechanically leading to the constitution of a Committee
without any threshold assessment of whether the motion warrants
such grave proceedings.
12. The procedure contemplated in the Act is sui generis and will have
to be interpreted in view of the constitutional scheme in general
and Articles 121 and 211 in particular. Section 3(2) of the Act also
specifically and consciously uses the word “if the motion referred to
in subsection (1) is admitted”. This further highlights the significance
of “admission” of the motion, which is different from mere “giving” of
the motion. It thus provides that if a motion for removal of a Judge
is admitted by the Speaker or the Chairman, the Speaker or the
Chairman shall keep the motion pending and “constitute, as soon
as may be,” a three-member Committee to investigate the grounds
for removal of a judge.
13. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 3(2) stipulates
that where notices of a motion 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 it is only when
the motion is admitted in both Houses, that the Committee shall be
constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman. Thus, when
notices of motion are initiated simultaneously in both Houses, the
law envisages a joint action only if both Houses admit the motion.
The proviso is intended to avoid two committees being constituted
simultaneously to inquire into the same allegations, which may result
in conflicting views.
14. The logical corollary of this is that when notices of motion are given
on the same day, but only admitted by one House and rejected by
the other House, then the Speaker/Chairman, as the case may be,
who admits the motion is well within its statutory right to keep it
pending and constitute a Committee as per Section 3(2) of the Act.
15. In the facts of the present case, notices of motion were indeed
submitted on the same day, i.e., 21 July 2025, in both Houses of
Parliament. On the one hand, the notice of motion for removal given
in the Lok Sabha was received by the Hon’ble Speaker at 12:30 pm
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 253

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

and was signed by 146 members belonging to different political
parties. On the other hand, the notice of motion given in the Rajya
Sabha was signed by 62 members, and the then Chairman made
an announcement in the House between 4:07 pm to 4:19 pm. The
address of the then Chairman makes it evidently clear that he was
neither “admitting” the motion nor “refusing to admit” the motion.22
Moreover, the Hon’ble Law Minister had also informed the Chairman
that another motion was given in the Lok Sabha, pursuant to which
the Chairman directed the Secretary General to “take necessary
steps in this direction”.
16. It is pertinent to note that the then Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
resigned as the Vice-President on 21 July 2025, and the Deputy
Chairman assumed charge under Article 91 of the Constitution. Upon
scrutiny of the notice, the Deputy Chairman, on 11 August 2025,
concluded that the motion contained infirmities and that the notice was
not in order and thus not admitted. The Hon’ble Deputy Chairman,
Rajya Sabha, directed that the Secretary General, Lok Sabha, may
be informed accordingly. This decision of refusal to admit the motion
was communicated in writing by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to the
Lok Sabha Secretariat on the same day, i.e. 11 August 2025.
17. Thus, after following the due process, the Speaker admitted the
motion received from members of the Lok Sabha and made an
announcement to this effect on 12 August 2025 and kept it pending
for inquiry. Accordingly, considering the fact that Rajya Sabha’s
motion was not admitted, on 12 August 2025, only one House, i.e.,
Lok Sabha, had an admitted motion for the removal of the Petitioner.
18. Therefore, the requirement of a joint committee under the proviso to
Section 3(2) was not triggered in these circumstances. The proviso
operates only when (i) notices of motion are given on the same day
and (ii) both the Houses admit the motion. The Hon’ble Speaker, before
constituting the Committee, waited for the Rajya Sabha’s decision,
and only when he was formally informed that the Rajya Sabha motion
was not admitted, the Committee was constituted on 12 August 2025.
19. It is pertinent to note that while the proviso bars constituting a Committee
unless both Houses admit the motion, it nowhere says that the rejection

22 The then Chairman, specifically mentioned that “Then the right of the Speaker or the Chairman to
admit or reject the motion is not there” (Pg. 47 of the Petition @ Para 1).
254 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of a motion in one House automatically invalidates an admitted motion
in the other. To hold otherwise would allow one House’s refusal to
admit the motion (potentially even a nefarious rejection) to defeat the
removal process approved by the other House, which is neither the
intent of the law nor a reasonable interpretation of the proviso.
20. The Petitioner’s contention that the constitution of the Committee
is invalid “because the motion was not admitted in both Houses” is
misplaced. Such a situation arose only because the Rajya Sabha’s
motion failed to meet the threshold for admission. The law does not
prohibit the Speaker from acting on a properly admitted motion of
one House when the notice of motion given in the other House did
not culminate in an admission. It is humbly submitted that any other
interpretation would undermine the removal process by effectively
giving one House a veto over the initiation of an inquiry, even where
the other House has fulfilled all statutory requirements.
21. At this juncture, it is submitted that it is a settled law that a proviso
has to be understood from the language used in the main provision
and not vice versa. Moreover, it is also a settled law that if the
substantive provision is clear on fair interpretation, the language in
the proviso cannot be used to defeat the basic intent expressed in
the said provision.23

C. DEMONSTRATIVE, GROSS AND REAL PREJUDICE SHOULD
BE SHOWN FOR INVOKING ARTICLE 32
22. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not shown any “demonstrable,
gross or real prejudice” caused to him by the manner in which the
process for removal has been initiated, even if a purported procedural
lapse is assumed to have taken place. It is submitted that such
a demonstrable, gross or real prejudice must be proved by the
Petitioner.24 In substance, the Petitioner’s complaint is that he lost

23 See Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, (1976) 1 SCC 128 ¶16; Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti Prasad,
(1980) 2 SCC 378 ¶9; S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591 ¶27; J.K. Industries
Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665 ¶35; Director of Education
(Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar; (1998) 5 SCC 192 ¶8; Rohitash Kumar v. Om Prakash Sharma,
(2013) 11 SCC 451 ¶20.
24 See ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 ¶30[v]; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3
SCC ¶28, 33(3) & 33(7); State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 ¶36 & 42.1-42.5; S.P.
Gupta v. U.P. State Electricity Board, (1991) 2 SCC 263 ¶5; State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025
SCC OnLine 1702 ¶20.1.3-20.1.7; L&T Housing Financing Limited v. Trishul Developers, (2020) 10
SCC 659 ¶19.
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 255

X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.

the “benefit” of a joint committee constituted by both the Speaker and
the Chairman. However, this does not translate into any prejudice
or a real or demonstrable disadvantage.
23. The Committee constituted by the Speaker is a duly authorized body
formed strictly in conformity with Section 3(2) (a), (b) and (c) of the
Act. The Committee is bound to conduct its investigation fairly and
give the Petitioner full opportunity to be heard. The Petitioner remains
entitled to submit his defence, adduce evidence, cross-examine
witnesses and respond to any allegations before this Committee, in
the same manner as he would before a joint committee.
24. It is respectfully submitted that the ultimate safeguard of Parliamentary
approval under Article 124(4) also remains intact. Even if the
Committee holds that the Judge is guilty of any misbehaviour or
suffers from any incapacity, then the motion, along with the report of
the Committee, would be taken up for consideration by the Houses
of Parliament. Removal of a Judge cannot take place 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 the House present and voting. Therefore, a procedural divergence
(a single-House Committee as opposed to a Joint Committee) does
not undermine the fairness of the process or the Petitioner’s ability to
defend himself. He suffers no substantive disadvantage at this stage.
25. It is submitted that the proviso to Section 3(2) is primarily for avoiding
an anomalous situation arising out of a possibility of two simultaneous
committees being appointed and to avoid a contingency where two
motions remain “pending” with two different committees investigating
the same act. The proviso does not confer any right on anyone,
including the recipient of the charge memo by the Committee. The
real purpose behind the proviso is for the benefit of the members.
26. When the constitution of the Committee jointly does not confer any
right, there can be no prejudice. The prejudice can possibly arise in the
event that both motions are given on the same day and are admitted,
and the Speaker or the Chairman alone constitute a Committee.
27. The extraordinary remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution is
available only to address breaches of fundamental rights or patent
gross injustice. In the present case, the Petitioner’s grievances are
256 [2026] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

at best technical and procedural. He has not pointed to any breach
of his fundamental rights. It is submitted that the Petitioner’s rights
are safeguarded by the presence of an impartial and independent
Committee and the multiple stages of decision-making that lie ahead.

D. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN TO EXERCISE THE FUNCTIONS OF
THE CHAIRMAN WHEN THE OFFICE IS VACANT AS PER
ARTICLE 91 OF THE CONSTITUTION
28. It is submitted that Article 91(1) of the Constitution of India explicitly
provides for the contingency where the office of Chairman of the
Rajya Sabha is vacant. In such a case, the duties of the office
shall be performed by the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
The Constitution thus, ensures that the absence or vacancy of the
Chairman does not paralyze the functioning of the House. The Deputy
Chairman automatically steps into the role by a constitutional mandate.
29. It is humbly submitted that a statute cannot be read in isolation to
negate a clear constitutional authorization. In the present case, the
trigger for invoking Article 91 was the resignation of the Hon’ble
Chairman from the office of the Vice-President on 21 July 2025. Since
then, by operation of law, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha
was empowered to perform all duties and exercise all the powers
of the Chairman, including admitting/refusing to admit motions, as
envisaged under Section 3(1). Therefore, the Deputy Chairman’s
authority in this capacity flows directly from the Constitution, and
any other interpretation would render Article 91, in the context of
the Act, unworkable, redundant, and otiose.25

Result of the case: Writ petition dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey

25 It is a settled position of law that no provision of the Constitution of India can be considered to be otiose.
See Welfare Assn., A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358 ¶28; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union
of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 ¶126; Chief Justice of A.P. v. L.V.A. Dixitulu, (1979) 2 SCC 34 ¶74; Jindal
Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2017) 12 SCC 1 ¶13 & 15; Jayant Verma v. Union of India, (2018)
4 SCC 743 ¶25; Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, (2019) 20 SCC 143 ¶75.