Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 — officially “An Act to provide for the procedure for inquiry into the conduct of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts”—establishes a statutory framework for investigating alleged misbehaviour or incapacity of India’s senior judiciary. Enacted on 30 December 1968 and effective from 1 January 1969 (Act No. 30 of 1968), the law translates the constitutional power vested in the President under Articles 124(4) and 217(1) into a concrete, quasi‑judicial process, thereby safeguarding judicial independence while ensuring accountability.

Origins / Historical Background

The Act emerged against the backdrop of the Constitution’s ambiguous removal clause, which required a “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” but offered no procedural detail. Early post‑Independence debates, notably the 1955 Parliamentary Committee on the Judiciary, warned that without a clear mechanism, either judicial misconduct could go unchecked or removal could become a tool for political retaliation. Consequently, the 1968 legislation was introduced by the Ministry of Law and Justice and passed with bipartisan support, reflecting a consensus that a transparent, judge‑led inquiry was essential for the credibility of the courts.

Subsequent jurisprudence sharpened the Act’s contours. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1993 4 SCC 617), the Supreme Court held that the President cannot dismiss a judge absent a formal inquiry as prescribed by the Act, cementing its constitutional status. The Judges (Inquiry) (Amendment) Act 2006 (Act No. 31 of 2006) later inserted Section 2A to define “misbehaviour” and “incapacity” and extended the permissible period for a committee’s report from three to six months, addressing procedural bottlenecks observed in earlier inquiries.

How It Works / Mechanism

Section 3 authorises the President to order an inquiry after a “reference” is made either by a motion passed by each House of Parliament (for Supreme Court judges) or by the Chief Justice of India (for High Court judges). Once a reference is received, Section 4 mandates the constitution of a three‑member Committee of Inquiry. For a Supreme Court judge, the committee comprises the Chief Justice of India, the senior-most Supreme Court judge, and a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice. For a High Court judge, it includes the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, the senior-most judge of that High Court, and a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice of India.

Section 5 endows the committee with powers akin to a civil court: it may summon witnesses, require the production of documents, and permit the judge under scrutiny to be represented by counsel, to cross‑examine witnesses, and to make written statements. The inquiry must be completed within three months, with a possible six‑month extension under Section 6 if the committee certifies that additional time is essential. Upon conclusion, the committee submits a detailed report to the President, who may then, under Section 7, issue an order of removal if the findings constitute “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.

Key Provisions

• •Section 2: Provides definitions of “inquiry”, “misbehaviour”, and “incapacity”.
• •**Section 4