Judicial removal procedure under the Constitution: pre-parliamentary proof stage survives dissolution and remains open to judicial review.

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is described as a special pre-parliamentary procedure under Article 124(5) for investigating and proving misbehaviour or incapacity before a removal motion reaches the parliamentary stage under Article 124(4). The motion is stated not to lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha, because the statute displaces the ordinary lapse rule for parliamentary business. The process up to admission of the motion, constitution of the Inquiry Committee, and recording of its findings is treated as justiciable. The text also states that no prior hearing was mandatory at admission, interim restraint on judicial functions was refused, standing was upheld, and mala fides were not proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a motion for the removal of a Judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. (ii) Whether the process under the Act, including the Speaker's decision to admit the motion and constitute the Inquiry Committee, is justiciable and within the court's jurisdiction. (iii) Whether prior proof of misbehaviour or incapacity is a condition precedent to the parliamentary stage under Article 124(4) and whether the Act is intra vires. (iv) Whether the Judge was entitled to notice and hearing before admission of the motion, whether interim restraint on judicial functions could be granted, whether the petitioners had locus standi, and whether mala fides were made out.

Issue (i): Whether a motion for the removal of a Judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the admitted motion to be kept pending and contemplated its revival after the Committee's report. The law made under Article 124(5) governed the special removal procedure and displaced the ordinary rule of lapse applicable to parliamentary business under Article 118. The Court held that the motion was not a mere ordinary motion of the House and that the doctrine of lapse did not apply.

Conclusion: The motion did not lapse on dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

Issue (ii): Whether the process under the Act, including the Speaker's decision to admit the motion and constitute the Inquiry Committee, is justiciable and within the court's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that, upto the stage of admission of the motion, constitution of the Committee, and recording of the Committee's findings, the matter was governed by statute and did not form part of the exclusive proceedings of the House. The Speaker acted as a statutory authority under the Act. Consequently, judicial review was available at that stage, and the argument that the entire matter was outside judicial scrutiny was rejected.

Conclusion: The process was justiciable at the statutory stage and was not beyond the Court's jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether prior proof of misbehaviour or incapacity is a condition precedent to the parliamentary stage under Article 124(4) and whether the Act is intra vires.

Analysis: The Court construed Articles 121, 124(4) and 124(5) harmoniously and held that proof of misbehaviour or incapacity in accordance with a law enacted under Article 124(5) precedes the parliamentary motion under Article 124(4). The Act was read as a valid legislative scheme regulating the entire pre-parliamentary process of investigation and proof, while preserving the House's final power under Article 124(4). On this construction, the Act did not offend the Constitution.

Conclusion: Prior proof under Article 124(5) was required, and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was constitutional.

Issue (iv): Whether the Judge was entitled to notice and hearing before admission of the motion, whether interim restraint on judicial functions could be granted, whether the petitioners had locus standi, and whether mala fides were made out.

Analysis: The Court held that the statute did not confer a right of hearing at the preliminary stage of admission of the motion, though the Speaker could choose to consult the Judge if appropriate. It further held that a judicial direction restraining the Judge from discharging judicial functions was not warranted within the constitutional scheme, that the petitioners had standing, and that the allegations of mala fides were not established. The challenge based on futility and in fructuousness was also rejected.

Conclusion: No prior hearing was mandatory at the admission stage, interim restraint was refused, standing was upheld, and mala fides were not proved.

Final Conclusion: The majority sustained the statutory scheme for judicial removal, declared that the motion survived dissolution, and rejected the principal challenges except that some petitions were disposed of by declarations of law while others were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the constitutional scheme governing removal of a Judge, the statutory process under Article 124(5) for investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity is a special pre-parliamentary stage that governs the admitted motion, excludes the ordinary rule of lapse, and is amenable to judicial review before the parliamentary stage under Article 124(4) commences.

---