Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is the law that sets out, step by step, how Parliament investigates a complaint against a judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court, and how a removal motion moves forward. The Constitution only says a judge can be removed for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity" by a special vote of Parliament.

This Act adds the detailed procedure: who can start the process, who investigates, and what happens after the investigation. The same procedure also applies to the Chief Election Commissioner and other constitutional officers whose removal is linked to that of a judge.

Why does it exist?

Judges must decide cases without fear of the government or powerful people. If a judge could be removed easily, they might hesitate to rule against those in power. At the same time, a dishonest or unfit judge should not be able to stay on forever. The Act balances these two needs. It makes removal possible, but only after a fair, independent inquiry, so that it cannot easily be used as a political weapon.

Where does it come from?

Article 124(4) of the Constitution says a Supreme Court judge can be removed only by an order of the President. That order can follow only after each House of Parliament passes an address, in the same session, with a special majority, on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Article 124(5) lets Parliament make a law on how to present the address and how to investigate and prove the charges.

Parliament used this power to pass the Judges (Inquiry) Act in 1968. Article 217(1)(b) applies the same removal method to High Court judges.

Who else is removed this way?

Some constitutional posts are removed "in like manner and on the like grounds" as a Supreme Court judge. The most important for UPSC are:

• The Chief Election Commissioner (Article 324(5))
• The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) (Article 148(1))

So when news talks about removing a CEC, the Judges (Inquiry) Act is the law that would actually be used.

How does the process work, step by step?

1. Notice of motion: At least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or at least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha must sign a notice. It is given to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or the Chairman (Rajya Sabha).
2. Admission: The Speaker or Chairman may consult people and look at material, and then either admit the motion or refuse it. This is a real filter; many notices have ended here.
3. Inquiry Committee: If the motion is admitted, the presiding officer sets up a three-member committee. It has one judge of the Supreme Court (this can include the Chief Justice of India), one Chief Justice of a High Court, and one distinguished jurist (an eminent legal expert).
4. Charges and hearing: The committee frames definite charges and gives them to the judge, who can reply and defend himself or herself. In an incapacity case, a medical board may examine the judge.
5. Report: The committee sends its report to the presiding officer, who places it before Parliament. If the committee finds the judge not guilty, the motion goes no further.
6. Vote in Parliament: If the committee finds the charges proved, the motion is taken up with the report. Each House must pass it by a special majority: a majority of its total membership and two-thirds of members present and voting.
7. Removal: After both Houses pass it in the same session, the address goes to the President, who orders the removal.

If notices are given in both Houses on the same day, no committee is formed unless both Houses admit the motion. Then a joint committee is formed by the Speaker and the Chairman together.

What counts as misbehaviour or incapacity?

The Constitution does not define these words. "Incapacity" usually means a physical or mental condition that stops the judge from working. "Misbehaviour" has been understood to mean serious wrong conduct, such as corruption or lack of integrity, and not just a wrong judgment. A judge cannot be removed only because people disagree with his or her decisions.

What has happened in practice?

No judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court has ever been removed in independent India. The main cases are:

• Justice V. Ramaswami (Supreme Court, 1993): The first judge to face removal proceedings. The inquiry committee found several charges proved. But in the Lok Sabha vote in May 1993, the motion got 196 votes for and none against, while 205 members abstained. It failed because it did not get a majority of the total membership.
• Justice Soumitra Sen (Calcutta High Court, 2011): The Rajya Sabha passed the motion on 18 August 2011, the first time a House passed such a motion. He resigned on 1 September 2011, before the Lok Sabha vote, so the process ended.
• Justice S.K. Gangele (Madhya Pradesh High Court): A committee under the Act found the material did not prove the charge.
• Justice Yashwant Varma (Allahabad High Court): The Lok Sabha Speaker admitted a motion signed by 146 MPs on 12 August 2025 and formed an inquiry committee. The judge resigned in April 2026, and the committee's report, submitted in May 2026, found the charges proved.

Commonly confused concepts

• In-house procedure vs removal under the Act: The judiciary has its own internal "in-house procedure", in which the Chief Justice of India can set up a panel of judges to look into a complaint. It cannot remove a judge; it can only advise the judge to resign or recommend further action. Only Parliament can remove a judge, through the Act.
• Removal of a judge vs impeachment of the President: The President is impeached under Article 61 for "violation of the Constitution", and the charge needs a two-thirds vote of the total membership of each House. Judges are removed for proved misbehaviour or incapacity with a special majority. The Constitution uses the word "impeachment" only for the President, though people loosely use it for judges too.
• Supreme Court judge vs High Court judge: Both are removed by the same process (Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b)).
• CEC vs ECs: The CEC is removed by this judge-style process. Other Election Commissioners are removed by the President on the CEC's recommendation, without a parliamentary vote.

Issues, criticism and the way forward

• Too hard to use: Supporters say the difficult process protects judicial independence. Critics say it is so hard that it has never led to a removal, so it does little to deter misconduct.
• Political outcome: Even after a judicial committee finds charges proved, the final vote is political, as the 1993 case showed.
• Resignation ends the process: A judge can resign before the vote and avoid removal, as happened in 2011.
• Gatekeeping by one person: The Speaker or Chairman can refuse a notice at the start, and critics say this gives one person a lot of control. Others say it filters out weak or politically driven notices.
• Way forward: Proposals have included a separate body to handle complaints against judges, as in the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010, which lapsed. Others suggest clearer definitions of misbehaviour and time limits for each stage.

Concepts to Know

• Address (to the President): A formal message passed by a House of Parliament. Here, it asks the President to remove the judge.
• Distinguished jurist: A highly respected legal expert, such as a senior lawyer or law scholar.
• Presiding officer: The person who runs a House: the Speaker in the Lok Sabha, the Chairman in the Rajya Sabha.
• Abstain: To be present but not vote for or against.