The ifs and buts behind the motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra

NEW DELHI: Legal experts said that except the Judges’ Inquiry Act, 1968, there’s little to go by way of conventions or practices as this is the first time a sitting Chief Justice of India was facing an impeachment motion.

The Opposition Congress may have been able to garner the support of 71 MPs from seven parties to back its impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra, but whether or not it will cross the threshold remains to be seen.


Under the Act, the chair has to first admit the motion after consulting such persons it deems fit and examining the available material. Hence, it is completely the call of the chair whether to admit or not the motion.

Section 3(1)(b) of the Act reads as follows: “… in the case of a notice given in the council of states, then the chairman, 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.”

These consultations pre-date any committee that may be set up to examine the charges against him. Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan says that the law was unclear about who he can consult – though normally the AG and a constitutional functionary is consulted. However, the chair may also consult other legal luminaries such as former chief justices or any other jurist. He will also examine the material available, discuss and take opinion within a “reasonable time” in absence of any time limit.

He said that would normally take around 10 to 15 days to admit or refuse to admit any such motion. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran though said that he could technically sit on it as there was no time limit prescribed within which he has to do so. The matter will rest should the chair decide not to admit the motion, he said.