https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277556 The Court held that a motion for the removal of a Judge does not lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and remains pending until the committee submits its report. It also determined that the process for removal of a Judge is justiciable up to the point of admission of the motion and constitution of the Committee. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was deemed constitutional, and the Court rejected claims of mala fides against the Speaker. The Court upheld the locus standi of petitioners, including the Supreme Court Bar Association, and emphasized the effectiveness of declaring the legal and constitutional position without issuing specific writs. Justice L.M. Sharma dissented, asserting that the courts have no jurisdiction in matters of Judge removal. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:53:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277556 The Court held that a motion for the removal of a Judge does not lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and remains pending until the committee submits its report. It also determined that the process for removal of a Judge is justiciable up to the point of admission of the motion and constitution of the Committee. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was deemed constitutional, and the Court rejected claims of mala fides against the Speaker. The Court upheld the locus standi of petitioners, including the Supreme Court Bar Association, and emphasized the effectiveness of declaring the legal and constitutional position without issuing specific writs. Justice L.M. Sharma dissented, asserting that the courts have no jurisdiction in matters of Judge removal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277556