Examine the constitutional validity of the Lok Sabha Speaker constituting a judge-inquiry committee unilaterally when the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman has rejected the corresponding motion in the Upper House.

The Constitution fixes the grounds for removing a judge — proved misbehaviour or incapacity — while the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 fixes the procedure [1][2]. The Justice Varma proceedings, where removal notices were filed in both Houses on the same day but admitted in only one, tested whether the Speaker may act alone. The action is constitutionally valid on a purposive reading.

The statutory scheme

• Art. 124(4) (SC judges) and Art. 217(1)(b) read with Art. 218 (HC judges): removal by Presidential order after an address by each House passed by special majority [1][3].
• On a notice by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, the presiding officer admits the motion and constitutes a three-member committee — a SC judge, a HC Chief Justice and a distinguished jurist [3].
• Section 3(2), first proviso: where notices are given the same day in both Houses, the committee is constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman; the second proviso leaves single-House admission to that House's presiding officer alone [2].

Arguments against validity

• Textual reading: simultaneous notices literally attract the first proviso, making joint constitution mandatory.
• Art. 91 question: whether the Deputy Chairman may perform the Chairman's quasi-judicial function of rejecting an impeachment notice remains unsettled.
• Federal-bicameral concern: one House unilaterally driving a process requiring concurrence of both dilutes the Rajya Sabha's coordinate role.

Arguments for validity

• The first proviso presupposes admission in both Houses; a rejected notice leaves no live motion, so the second proviso governs.
• Art. 122 insulates parliamentary procedure from judicial review for mere irregularity [1].
• The committee only finds facts; the real safeguard is the special majority in both Houses, so no prejudice accrues to the judge.
• The Supreme Court (Datta and Sharma JJ., 16 January 2026) held the Speaker committed no illegality and declined interference [4].

The ruling settles that same-day filing alone does not compel a joint committee, harmonising statutory text with legislative purpose. Yet the episode exposes a drafting gap best closed by clarifying the Act on divergent admission outcomes and prescribing timelines for presiding officers. Such codification would serve both judicial independence and parliamentary accountability, the twin values the removal procedure was designed to balance.