ORDER

1. During the course of the hearing of this petition Mr Kapil Sibal urged the following contentions for our consideration:

(1) Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, mandates that the Speaker of the House of the People shall either admit or refuse to admit a motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India only after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him and failure to comply with the said sine-qua-non, viz., consideration of available material before admitting the motion, vitiates his decision for non-application of mind. In the present case since the then Speaker, respondent 3, is not shown to have applied his mind to the available material before admitting the motion, his decision to admit the motion and constitute the Committee comprising respondents 4, 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law.

(2) Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, invests the Speaker with the power to constitute a Committee for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of the Judge is sought but such power must be exercised consistently