- (1.) These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of theconstitution of India and of "the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968" even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.
(2.) Notice was given by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha, the a term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr Justice V. Ramaswami of this court. On 12/03/1991, the Motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr Justice P. B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this court, Mr Justice P. D. Desai, chief justice of the High court of Bom- bay, and Mr Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of S. 3 (2 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.
(3.) The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Union government to act in aid of the decision of the Speaker and to decline to notify that the services of the two sitting Judges on the Committee would be treated as "actual service" within the meaning of Para 11 (B) (i) of Part D of the Second Schedule to the Constitution. It is said that without such a notification the two sitting Judges cannot take time off from their court work. The Union government seeks to justify its stand on its understanding that both the motion given notice of by the 108 Members of the Lok Sabha for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of the Judge concerned as well as the decision of the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha to admit the motion and constitute a Committee under the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act have lapsed with the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha.;