1992 (8) TMI 284 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Judicial review availability and stage against Inquiry Committee findings u/s 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
2. Entitlement of the concerned Judge to a copy of the Inquiry Committee's report before submission to the Speaker.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of lapse to the motion for removal of a Judge upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
4. Justiciability of the Inquiry Committee's findings and the extent of judicial review.
5. Whether the Inquiry Committee is a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Judicial Review Availability and Stage:
The primary issue was whether judicial review is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted u/s 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and at what stage it can be sought. The petitioner argued that judicial review should be available before the report is submitted to the Speaker or laid before Parliament. The Court held that judicial review is available only after the President makes an order of removal under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. Judicial review at this stage ensures that the concerned Judge can challenge the findings of 'guilty' on permissible grounds.

2. Entitlement to a Copy of the Report:
The petitioner sought a direction for the Inquiry Committee to provide a copy of its report to the concerned Judge before submitting it to the Speaker. The Court concluded that the concerned Judge is not entitled to a copy of the report before it is submitted to the Speaker. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme does not provide for such a right, and the report becomes a parliamentary document only when laid before the House. The Court also noted that the concerned Judge would have an opportunity to present his case during the parliamentary process.

3. Doctrine of Lapse:
The issue of whether the motion for the removal of a Judge lapses upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha was addressed. The Court, following the precedent set in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, held that the motion does not lapse upon the dissolution of the House. The process for removal of a Judge is statutory until the report is laid before Parliament, and the doctrine of lapse does not apply at this stage.

4. Justiciability and Extent of Judicial Review:
The Court examined the extent to which the findings of the Inquiry Committee are subject to judicial review. It was held that the judicial review is limited to the legality of the findings and the process followed by the Committee. The Court emphasized that the findings of 'not guilty' are conclusive and not subject to further scrutiny, while the findings of 'guilty' can be challenged only after the President's order of removal.

5. Inquiry Committee as a Tribunal:
The petitioner argued that the Inquiry Committee is a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the Inquiry Committee, although a high judicial body, is not a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136. The Committee's findings are not final and conclusive but are subject to parliamentary consideration and action.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the concerned Judge is not entitled to a copy of the Inquiry Committee's report before it is submitted to the Speaker. Judicial review is available only after the President makes an order of removal under Article 124(4). The findings of 'not guilty' are conclusive and not subject to further scrutiny, while the findings of 'guilty' can be challenged on permissible grounds after the President's order. The Inquiry Committee is not considered a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136.