Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The Supreme Court examined petitions filed by a Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability, the Supreme Court Bar Association and individual litigants seeking to enforce the Speaker's admission of a motion for the removal of Justice V. Ramaswami and to restrain him from performing judicial duties. The key issues were whe…

Capt. V. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the Lok Sabha’s voting on the impeachment motion against Justice V. Ramaswami. He alleged that his nine‑page communication to the Speaker was not circulated, that an oral whip to abstain was illegal, and that the Speaker should have compelled MPs to vote…

The petition, filed by Smt. Sarojini Ramaswami on behalf of her husband Justice V. Ramaswami, sought a mandamus directing the Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to furnish a copy of its report to the Judge before it was submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, alleging a violation of n…

In 1991 a motion signed by 108 Lok Sabha members to remove Justice V. Ramaswami was admitted by the Speaker, leading to the constitution of an Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Two writ petitions (W.P. 140/1992 and W.P. 149/1992) were filed under Article 32 seeking to quash the motion, the committ…

The Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability filed a suo motu criminal contempt petition against Justice V. Ramaswamy, alleging that a letter he wrote to the Enquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 contained sweeping allegations against judges and the judiciary. The petition invoked Section 15 of the Con…

The petitioner, a former Additional District and Sessions Judge, alleged sexual harassment and victimisation by a sitting High Court judge and challenged the inquiry process initiated by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Chief Justice had constituted a two‑judge committee to conduct an in‑depth probe, which the …

The case concerned the appointment of Dinkar Gupta as Director General of Police (HoPF) of Punjab, which was challenged on the ground that the empanelment panel prepared by the UPSC violated the directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India. The appellants alleged bias, procedural impropriety and that the Draft Guideli…

The petition challenged the constitution of a three‑member inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker after a notice of motion to remove a Delhi High Court judge was admitted in the Lok Sabha but rejected in the Rajya Sabha by the Deputy Chairman, who was acting as Chairman after the Chairman’s resignation. The petitio…

Ms X, an Additional District & Sessions Judge, was transferred mid‑term from Gwalior to Sidhi after a complaint by the District & Sessions Judge, allegedly following sexual harassment. She sought an eight‑month extension to allow her daughter to complete Class 12, but her representations were rejected without following…

The Supreme Court suo motu initiated contempt proceedings against Justice C.S. Karnan of the Madras High Court for repeatedly issuing letters and orders that alleged corruption and caste-based discrimination against numerous judges, including Supreme Court judges, and for publicly scandalising the judiciary. The Court …

The Supreme Court heard a writ petition filed by the Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability seeking directions concerning an inquiry into alleged misconduct of a sitting Supreme Court judge for his conduct as former Chief Justice of a High Court. The petition questioned the validity of the Lok Sabha Speaker’s admissi…

A High Court judge (the petitioner) was implicated after a fire in his bungalow revealed burnt currency notes, prompting the Supreme Court's in‑house Procedure. A three‑member committee found serious misconduct and the Chief Justice of India (CJI) forwarded the report to the President and Prime Minister, after which th…

The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking to restrain the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates' Association of Western India from pressuring the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, to resign an…

Justice P.D. Dinakaran, then Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, challenged the constitution of an Inquiry Committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to investigate allegations against him. He objected to the inclusion of senior advocate P.P. Rao (respondent No.3) on grounds of bias, citing Rao's part…