Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CJI President Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2025 2.3 It is, however, apposite to note that the petitioner’s writ petition was dismissed on 7th August, 2025, by a two-Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (Dipankar Datta];’) was a member.

Notices of motion seeking removal of the petitioner from office:

incidents of 21st July, 2025 2.4 Invoking the provisions of the Inquiry Act, a notice was given on 21st July, 2025, of a motion signed by more than 100 members in the Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President praying for the petitioner’s removal. The said notice was received by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha at 12:30 p.m., but was not admitted on the same day.

12. The procedure contemplated in the Act is sui generis and will have to be interpreted in view of the constitutional scheme in general and Articles 121 and 211 in particular. Section 3(2) of the Act also specifically and consciously uses the word “if the motion referred to in subsection (1) is admitted”. This further highlights the significance of “admission” of the motion, which is different from mere “giving” of the motion. It thus provides that if a motion for removal of a Judge is admitted by the Speaker or the Chairman, the Speaker or the Chairman shall keep the motion pending and “constitute, as soon as may be,” a three-member Committee to investigate the grounds for removal of a judge.