This document summarizes the Indian government's response to Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1075, concerning reforms to the Supreme Court's in-house procedures for addressing judicial misconduct. The response, delivered on July 25, 2025, by Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Law and Justice, clarifies the existing constitutional and legal framework for addressing judicial misconduct.
The Minister's response refers to Article 124(4) and Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, which outline the process for removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge, respectively. Removal requires an order from the President following an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, based on "proved misbehaviour or incapacity."
The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, further details the investigation and proof procedures related to judicial misconduct or incapacity. Section 3 of the Act specifies the process for initiating an investigation, requiring a notice of motion signed by at least 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha. Upon admission of the motion by the Speaker or Chairman, a committee is formed to investigate the grounds for removal. This committee comprises a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, and a distinguished jurist.
The response indicates that the current legal framework adequately addresses the process of investigating and addressing judicial misconduct, implying that no immediate legislative reforms to the Supreme Court's in-house procedures are planned at the time of the response.
Key Entities Referenced
Supreme Court: The highest judicial body in India, mentioned in the context of reforms in its procedure and addressing judicial misconduct.
D K Aruna: Member of Parliament who raised a question about legislative reforms in the Supreme Court's in-house procedure.
Arjun Ram Meghwal: Minister of State in the Ministry of Law and Justice and Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, who provided the answer to the parliamentary question.
Article 124: Article of the Constitution of India that provides the procedure for the removal of a Supreme Court Judge.
President: The President of India, whose order is required for the removal of a judge after an address by Parliament.
Parliament: The legislative body of India, involved in the process of removing a judge through an address to the President.
High Court: The High Courts of India, whose judges can be removed in the same manner as Supreme Court judges, according to Article 217(1)(b).
Judges Inquiry Act, 1968: An Act of the Indian Parliament that lays down the procedure for investigation and proof of misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1075
TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 25.07.2025
Reforms in Supreme Court Procedure
1075. Smt. D K Aruna:
Will the Minister of Law and Justice be pleased to state:
(a) whether legislative reforms are required in the Supreme Court’s in-house
procedure for addressing judicial misconduct; and
(b) if so, the details thereof and steps being taken in this regard in consultation
with experts, and if not, the reasons therefor?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE
MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS.
(SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)
(a) and (b): Article 124 (4) provides that "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall
not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after
an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total
membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the
members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President
in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or
incapacity." For Judges of the High Court, Article 217(1)(b) stipulates that “A
Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided
for in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court.”The procedure for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a
Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court and for the presentation of an
address by Parliament to the President and for matters connected therewith” is
laid down in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Section 3 of the Act specifies:
“3. Investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of Judge by Committee. —
(1) If notice is given of a motion for presenting an address to the President praying
for the removal of a Judge signed, —
(a) in the case of a notice given in the House of the People, by not less than
one hundred members of that House;
(b) in the case of a notice given in the Council of States, by not less than fifty
members of that Council;
then, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting
such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any,
as may be available to him, either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.
(2) If the motion referred to in sub-section (1) is admitted, the Speaker or, as the
case may be, the Chairman shall keep the motion pending and constitute, as soon
as may be, for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which
the removal of a Judge is prayed for, a Committee consisting of three members
of whom—
(a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice and other Judges of the
Supreme Court;
(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts, and
(c) one shall be a person who is, in the opinion of, the Speaker or, as the case
may be, the Chairman, a distinguished jurist:”
***