Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SMT. SAROJINI RAMASWAMIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1992 INSC 22227 August 1992Disposed off

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

KRISHNA SWAMI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 22327 August 1992Dismissed

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

MOHD. MUSTAFAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 73116 November 2021Dismissed

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

XversusO/O SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF PEOPLE & ORS.

2026 INSC 6516 January 2026Dismissed

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

JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARANversusHON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE & ORS.

2011 INSC 4525 July 2011Dismissed

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

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search