Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968

Topic: Judiciary: Independence, Structure, Judicial Review and Activism · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 6 "Judiciary"

Meaning

The Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 is the law Parliament made under Article 124(5). It sets out, step by step, how a charge of misbehaviour or incapacity against a Supreme Court or High Court judge is investigated and proved before Parliament can vote to remove the judge [5].

• Why it matters: the Constitution allows removal only for "proved" misbehaviour or incapacity.
• This Act decides how the charge gets "proved". A three-member committee must find the judge guilty before Parliament can vote at all, so this protects judges from removal for political reasons.

Explanation

What the Act is and why it exists

• The basic fact: it is Act No. 51 of 1968, dated 5 December 1968 [5]. The Judges (Inquiry) Rules 1969 add the finer details.
• Its constitutional base: Article 124(4) says when a judge can be removed. Article 124(5) lets Parliament make a law on how: how the address is presented, and how misbehaviour or incapacity is investigated and proved.

• An address is a formal request from a House of Parliament to the President.

• The two grounds:

• Misbehaviour means wrongful conduct, such as corruption or misuse of office.

• Incapacity means the judge cannot do the job, for example because of serious physical or mental illness.

• Why removal is made hard: judicial independence means judges decide cases without fear of the government or Parliament.

• Security of tenure means a judge stays in office until retirement.
• A judge cannot be sacked for a judgment the government dislikes.

The procedure, step by step

1. Notice of motion - The notice must be signed by at least 100 Lok Sabha members and given to the Speaker, or 50 Rajya Sabha members and given to the Chairman [3][4].

2. Admission - The Speaker or Chairman alone looks at the notice and the material behind it. They then admit it or refuse it. - This step is a filter. A refusal ends the matter [3].

3. Inquiry committee - If the notice is admitted, a three-member committee is set up [3][4]:

   • a Supreme Court judge;
   • a High Court Chief Justice;
   • a distinguished jurist (a respected legal expert).

4. Inquiry - The committee frames charges, which means it writes down the exact accusations. - The judge can give a written reply, cross-examine witnesses and be heard. - The committee then reports to the Speaker or Chairman [4].

5. Finding - "Not guilty": the motion is dropped. Parliament cannot go further. - "Guilty": the report and the motion are taken up in the House.

6. Vote in Parliament - Each House debates and votes in the same session. - Each House needs a special majority [3][4]:

   • a majority of the total membership of the House; and
   • two-thirds of members present and voting.

7. Removal - The address goes to the President, who orders the removal [3].

Special rules and limits

• Joint committee: if notices are given in both Houses on the same day, no committee is formed until both are admitted.

• The Speaker and the Chairman then form one joint committee together.

• The committee's "not guilty" finding binds Parliament.

• Parliament cannot remove a judge the committee has cleared.

• This stops removal on purely political grounds.

• The committee's "guilty" finding does not bind Parliament.

• Parliament still has to reach the special majority in both Houses.

• So party votes, or a party staying away from the vote, can still save a judge who was found guilty.

• The judge can resign at any time by writing to the President (proviso to Article 124(2)). This cuts the process short.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional links
• Art. 124(4): a Supreme Court judge can be removed only by the President's order, after an address by each House in the same session, on the ground of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity".
• Art. 124(5): Parliament regulates the procedure. That law is the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968.
• Art. 217(1)(b) and Art. 218: the same rule applies to High Court judges.

• NCERT balance (Class 11, Judiciary): the executive appoints judges and the legislature removes them.

• The record: since 1950, no judge of the Supreme Court or any High Court has been removed.

• Justice V. Ramaswami (1991–93): the first removal motion
• 1991: 108 MPs signed a notice. The charges were about his time as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• 1992: the Justice P.B. Sawant committee found him guilty of "wilful and gross misuse of office".

• May 1993: in the Lok Sabha, the motion won two-thirds of those present and voting. It failed the total-membership test because the Congress abstained (stayed away from the vote).

• Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court, August 2011)

• The Rajya Sabha passed the removal motion.

• He resigned before the Lok Sabha vote.

• Justice P.D. Dinakaran (Chief Justice, Sikkim High Court, 2011): he resigned during the inquiry.

• CJI Dipak Misra (April 2018): the Rajya Sabha Chairman refused the notice at the admission stage.
• Justice Yashwant Varma (2025–26)
• March 2025: burnt currency was found at his official residence while he was a Delhi High Court judge. He was moved back to the Allahabad High Court.
• 22 March 2025: the CJI set up an in-house committee [6].
• May 2025: that committee found against him. The CJI sent its report to the President and the Prime Minister and recommended removal [7].
• 7 August 2025: the Supreme Court rejected his challenge to the in-house procedure [8].
• 12 August 2025: the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted the motion and set up a committee under the 1968 Act [2]:
  • Justice Aravind Kumar (Supreme Court), presiding;
  • Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court;
  • B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate [2].
• 18 May 2026: the committee gave its report to Speaker Om Birla. The report is to be laid before both Houses [2].
• Parliament's vote: not yet decided as of the latest official release (verify current status).
• Why it matters: this is the first case where an in-house finding led into the statutory route under the 1968 Act.

Don't confuse with

• In-house procedure (1999, made public 2014): this is the judiciary's own self-regulation system, started by the CJI or a High Court Chief Justice. It has no statutory basis (no Act of Parliament behind it). It can only advise a judge to resign or withdraw their judicial work. It cannot remove a judge. Only the Article 124(4) + 1968 Act route can.
• Impeachment of the President (Art. 61): the Constitution uses the word "impeachment" only for the President. It never uses it for removing judges, even though the media often calls it "impeachment of judges" [4].
• Two-thirds of total membership: this is the common exam trap. Removing a judge needs a majority of total membership plus two-thirds of members present and voting, in each House.
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010: this was a proposed law for binding judicial standards and a complaint system for judges [9]. It lapsed in 2014 and never became law. The 1968 Act is the law actually in force.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 124(5) → Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968). The finer details are in the Judges (Inquiry) Rules 1969 [5].
• Notice: 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. The Speaker or Chairman may refuse to admit it [3][4].
• Inquiry committee: Supreme Court judge + High Court Chief Justice + distinguished jurist. If notices are given in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee is formed.
• A "not guilty" finding by the committee ends the case. Parliament cannot vote to remove a judge the committee has cleared.
• V. Ramaswami (1993): first removal motion. The Sawant committee found him guilty, but the motion failed in the Lok Sabha because the Congress abstained.
• Soumitra Sen (2011): the only judge against whom one House (Rajya Sabha) passed a removal motion. He resigned before the Lok Sabha vote.

Mains Points

• Independence vs accountability
• The 1968 Act's high bar (a proved charge plus a special majority) protects judges from political revenge.
• But no judge has been removed in over 75 years, which suggests the bar may be too high for real misconduct.

• A law with graded penalties, such as censure or withdrawal of work, could fill the gap between "nothing" and "removal".

• Politicisation of a quasi-judicial process

• 1993: a party abstention overturned a guilty finding (Ramaswami).
• 2018: an admission-stage refusal stopped a notice against the CJI (Dipak Misra).

• Possible reforms:

  • give the committee's guilty finding more weight;
  • set clear standards for admitting notices, which courts can review.

• The statutory route and the in-house route together

• The Varma case (2025–26) shows quick internal action leading into the statutory process.
• The in-house route is opaque and has no law behind it.
• A law with fixed timelines and published findings, as the lapsed Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010 tried to provide [9], would improve public trust. This matters more since the collegium system and the NJAC judgment (2015) mean judges largely choose judges.

Related concepts

• Removal of judges
• Justice V. Ramaswami removal motion
• In-house procedure

Read more

• Removing judges: Article 124(4), the Judges (Inquiry) Act and in-house discipline