EIGHT REASONS VENKAIAH GAVE FOR HIS DECISION

1 Petition uses phrases such as “may have been”, “he too was likely”, “the CJI appears to have…”, expressions that indicate mere suspicion, conjecture or an assumption. The petition does not have proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is required to make out a case of “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124 (4) 2

Petition lacks “concrete verifiable” allegations. The allegations, Naidu says, are either within judicial domain and concern internal processes, or are unsubstantiated deductions According to Naidu, “we should, in my view, collectively strengthen and not erode the foundation of the grand edifice bequeathed to us by the Constitution makers” 4 With no “verifiable information” to indicate “misbehaviour” or “incapacity”, Naidu said, it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to “accept statements with little empirical basis” Initiating such proceedings tend to undermine the faith of the common person in the judicial system 6

There must be “extraordinary, important, and substantial grounds” for the removal of a judge

The opposition’s allegations can undermine the independence of judiciary, “which is the basic tenet of the Constitution of India and it is neither legal nor desirable or proper” to admit notice of motion on any one of these grounds 8

All facts, as stated in the motion, read with the context of the annexed documents, do not make out a case under Article 124(4) of the Constitution which deal with removal of a judge of the Supreme Court