SUB-COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABLILITY V. UNION OF INDIA (1991) 3 SCC 65:

DATE: 08/05/1991

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Justice B.C. Ray, Justice L.M. Sharma, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, Justice Jagdish Saran Verma and Justice S.C. Agrawal

FACTS:

The controversy arose out of serious allegations of financial impropriety and misuse of office against Justice V. Ramaswami, then a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, relating to his tenure as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Members of Parliament alleged excessive and unauthorised expenditure on the renovation of his official residence, misuse of public funds, and abuse of administrative powers. In response, a motion for his removal was initiated in the Lok Sabha under Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which provides the procedure for impeachment of judges of the higher judiciary.

However, when the motion was admitted, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha declined to constitute the mandatory three-member judicial committee required under the Judges (Inquiry) Act to investigate the allegations, citing procedural and political considerations. This refusal effectively stalled the impeachment process. Aggrieved by the Speaker’s inaction, a body of concerned lawyers and public-spirited individuals formed the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, which approached the Supreme Court under Article 32. The petition challenged the Speaker’s refusal to act and raised larger constitutional questions concerning judicial accountability, the scope of parliamentary privilege, and whether the Speaker’s decision in impeachment proceedings was subject to judicial review, leading to the matter being heard by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Speaker of the Lok Sabha’s decision not to constitute a judicial committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, after admission of a motion for removal of a Supreme Court judge, was subject to judicial review; whether such a decision was protected by parliamentary privilege under Article 122 of the Constitution; and whether the constitutional and statutory scheme governing impeachment of judges imposed a mandatory duty on the Speaker to act once the prescribed conditions were satisfied.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the Speaker’s decision at the pre-inquiry stage of impeachment proceedings was not justiciable. The Court ruled that matters relating to the internal functioning of Parliament in the process of removal of a judge, including the Speaker’s decision whether or not to constitute an inquiry committee, were protected from judicial review by Article 122 of the Constitution. Consequently, no mandamus could be issued directing the Speaker to constitute the committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.

The Court reasoned that the process for removal of judges under Articles 124(4) and 124(5) of the Constitution is a carefully structured constitutional mechanism entrusted primarily to Parliament. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 operates within this constitutional framework and does not override parliamentary autonomy. The Speaker’s role at the threshold stage—deciding how and when to proceed after a motion is admitted—was held to be part of the internal parliamentary process. Interference by courts at this stage would amount to judicial encroachment into legislative domain and would disturb the delicate balance of separation of powers envisaged by the Constitution.

The Court further held that Article 122 expressly bars judicial inquiry into proceedings of Parliament on grounds of procedural irregularity. The Speaker’s decision not to constitute the inquiry committee was characterized as a procedural matter integrally connected with parliamentary proceedings. While acknowledging the importance of judicial accountability, the Court emphasized that accountability mechanisms for judges must operate strictly within the constitutional scheme. Allowing judicial review of the Speaker’s discretion in impeachment proceedings would set an unhealthy precedent, enabling courts to supervise legislative processes, which the Constitution clearly prohibits. The Court therefore concluded that the remedy sought was constitutionally impermissible, even if the allegations against the judge were serious in nature.

ANALYSIS:

The decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India marks a pivotal articulation of the constitutional limits of judicial review in matters concerning parliamentary control over the removal of judges. The Supreme Court placed decisive emphasis on the doctrine of separation of powers, holding that the impeachment process under Articles 124(4) and 124(5) is an exclusive constitutional function of Parliament. By treating the Speaker’s decision at the pre-inquiry stage as an integral part of parliamentary proceedings, the Court underscored that judicial accountability, though vital to constitutional governance, must operate strictly within the framework expressly prescribed by the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act. The ruling thus affirms parliamentary supremacy in impeachment proceedings and signals judicial restraint in refraining from supervising legislative processes.

At the same time, the judgment exposes an inherent tension between the need for accountability of the higher judiciary and the constitutional insulation accorded to parliamentary procedure. While the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations against a sitting Supreme Court judge, it declined to intervene on the ground that Article 122 bars judicial scrutiny of procedural decisions taken within Parliament. This approach has been viewed as prioritising institutional boundaries over substantive accountability, effectively leaving the enforcement of judicial discipline to political processes. The case therefore stands as a constitutional milestone that clarifies the non-justiciability of impeachment-related decisions, while also highlighting the structural limitations of existing mechanisms to address allegations of misconduct against judges of the higher judiciary.