X Vs Speaker of The House of People & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Burnt Cash, Unburnt Process: Supreme Court Clears Way for Judge’s Inquiry- Supreme Court Clarifies Judges (Inquiry) Act: Speaker Can Constitute Committee Even If Motion Rejected in Other House; Deputy Chairman Competent to Act
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a sitting High Court Judge challenging the constitution of a three-member Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and upheld the validity of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha’s action in constituting the Committee despite rejection of a similar motion in the Rajya Sabha
Interpreting the first proviso to section 3(2) of the Inquiry Act, the Court held that a Joint Committee of both Houses is mandatory only when notices of motion given on the same day are admitted in both Houses. Mere giving of notices in both Houses on the same day does not trigger the proviso. Where a motion is admitted in one House but refused in the other, the Presiding Officer of the House admitting the motion is fully competent to independently constitute the Inquiry Committee. Any contrary interpretation would paralyse the statutory mechanism for removal of judges and allow abuse of the proviso to frustrate proceedings.
On the issue of competence of the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Court held that, in view of Article 91 of the Constitution, when the office of the Chairman is vacant, the Deputy Chairman is constitutionally empowered to perform all duties of the Chairman, including deciding on admission or rejection of a motion under the Inquiry Act. A narrow reading of the term “Chairman” divorced from the constitutional scheme was rejected.
The Court further held that even assuming the Deputy Chairman’s refusal to admit the motion was illegal, it would not invalidate the Speaker’s action, since the statutory requirement of an admitted motion in both Houses was never satisfied. The Speaker’s power does not depend on the correctness of the decision taken in the other House.
While declining relief, the Court expressed serious reservations about the role of the Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha, observing that the Secretariat appeared to have exceeded its administrative role by effectively adjudicating on the merits and form of the notice of motion. However, these observations were held to be purely academic and not determinative of the outcome.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Inquiry Committee was validly constituted, no constitutional or statutory violation was made out, and the writ petition was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
