X versus O/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF PEOPLE & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 2 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 16-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 2 S.C.R. 200 : 2026 INSC 65
X 
v. 
O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1233 of 2025)
16 January 2026
[Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Does the first proviso to s.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 
require the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having 
been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed by 
refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one House 
and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer of the other 
House; whether, in view of the office of the Chairman of the Rajya 
Sabha falling vacant, the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha 
was competent to refuse admission of the notice of motion; what 
is the effect, if any, of the Deputy Chairman’s refusal to admit 
the motion on the validity of the Speaker’s action under Section 
3(2) of the Inquiry Act; whether the draft decision prepared by the 
Secretary-General of the Rajya Sabha recording that the notice 
of motion given to the Chairman is not “in order” justified in law; 
whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Headnotes†
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 – First proviso to s.3(2) – 
Interpretation – Allegations of misbehaviour were levelled 
against the petitioner, a serving Judge of the Delhi High Court 
after burnt currency notes were allegedly discovered at his 
house during the course of dousing the fire that occurred at 
his residence – In accordance with the “In-House Procedure”, 
a three-member committee was constituted by then CJI to 
examine the allegations, which submitted its report to the 
CJI recording that the allegations were substantiated and that 
they warranted initiation of proceedings for the petitioner’s 
removal from office – CJI then forwarded the report to the 
Hon’ble President and the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India – 
* Author
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 
201
X v. O/o Speaker of the House of People & Ors.
Writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before Supreme Court, 
challenging Paragraphs 5(b) and 7 of the In-House Procedure, 
the forwarding of the report of the three-member committee 
by the CJI, and the report itself, which was dismissed – In 
the meanwhile, Members of both Houses, gave two notices of 
motion in their respective Houses on the same day seeking 
removal of the petitioner from office – The Chairman of the 
Rajya Sabha resigned from his office of the Vice-President 
of India later that day – Deputy Chairman (discharging the 
functions of the Chairman in his absence) rejected the motion – 
Subsequently, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha proceeded to 
admit the notice given in the Lok Sabha and in accordance with 
s.3(2), constituted a three-member Committee – Challenged 
by the petitioner – Plea of the petitioner that since notices 
u/s.3(1) were given in both Houses on the same day, the 
Committee constituted solely by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha 
violates the proviso – Does the first proviso to s.3(2) require 
the constitution of a Joint Committee where notices, having 
been given in both Houses on the same day, is later followed 
by refusal to admit the motion by the Presiding Officer of one 
House and admission of the motion by the Presiding Officer 
of the other House:
Held: No – The proviso applies to only one specific situation, 
namely, where notices of motion given on the same day have 
been admitted by both Houses – It does not restrict or negate 
the individual authority of either House of Parliament – In a case 
where notices of motion were given in both Houses on the same 
day, the fact that a notice is not admitted in one House will not 
necessitate constitution of a Joint Committee and the Speaker or 
the Chairman, as the case may be, can independently proceed 
to constitute a Committee – The interpretation of the first proviso, 
as advanced by the petitioner, that where notices of motion have 
been given in both Houses on the same day, the rejection of a 
notice in one House would automatically result in the notice in 
the other House failing, not accepted – The first proviso does not 
address all possible permutations but is confined to one specific 
situation, namely, where notices of motion given in both Houses 
on the same day have been admitted in both Houses – It is only in 
that limited situation that the statute mandates the constitution of a 
Joint Committee – The first proviso is not exhaustive but situational 
202
[2026] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in nature – It 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.