Relevance: GS-II (Parliament, Judiciary, Accountability); Source: Supreme Court Order & Judges Inquiry Act, 1968

News

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Lok Sabha Speaker on a petition alleging that the committee formed to investigate corruption charges against Justice Yashwant Varma was created without following mandatory procedure under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.

Core Issue 

The challenge is that the Speaker set up the inquiry committee before the motion was admitted by both Houses and without joint consultation with the Rajya Sabha Chairperson, as required by law.
This raises the question: Can Parliament bypass statutory safeguards in matters of judicial impeachment?

What the Law Requires (Judges Inquiry Act, 1968)

• A removal motion must be formally admitted in both Houses.
• Only then can a three-member inquiry committee be constituted.
• Lok Sabha Speaker + Rajya Sabha Chairperson must act jointly.
• The committee’s report determines whether the motion can be voted upon.

This procedure protects judicial independence by preventing unilateral political action.

Why the Supreme Court Intervened

The Court noted that:

• Motions were reportedly filed on the same day, yet the committee was formed without waiting for Rajya Sabha admission.
• This suggests procedural impropriety, which is open to judicial review when constitutional safeguards are at stake.

Thus the case sits at the intersection of:
Parliamentary privilege ↔ Judicial accountability ↔ Constitutional procedure.

Q. Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, consider the following:

1. An inquiry committee can be formed even if only one House admits the motion.
2. The presiding officers of both Houses must act jointly before constituting the committee.
3. The committee’s report is binding on Parliament.

How many statements are correct?
A. One
B. Two
C. All three
D. None