A writ petition by representative body like Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and Supreme Court Bar Association for directions to the Union of India to take immediate steps to enable Inquiry Committee constitution under the Judges (Enquiry) Act to discharge its functions under the Act and to restrain the concerned judge from performing judicial functions during pendency of proceedings before the Committee is maintainable. The Constitutional protection to judges is not for their personal benefit, but is one of the means of protecting the judiciary and its independence and is therefore, in the larger public interest. The law as to standing to sue in public interest action has undergone vast change over the years and recognised liberal standards for locus standi, expanding the principle of locus standi SC held.
There is a written constitution which constitutes the fundamental and in that sense "higher law" and acts as a limitation upon the legislature and other organs of the State as grantees under the Constitution, the usual incidents of parliamentary sovereignty do not obtain and the concept is one of "limited Government". It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The question whether the motion has lapsed is a matter to be pronounced upon the basis of the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant laws. [ Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability vs Union of India (1992)4 SCC 97 = AIR 1992 SC 63 = 1991(3) JT 659 = 1991(2) SCALE 776 B.C.Raj , L.M.Sharma , M.N.Venkitachaliah, J.S.Verma & S.C.Agarwal (J&J) ]