Hindustan Times (Patiala)

Naidu rejects bid to oust CJI

Opposition says due process subverted, likely to move court

- Moushumi Das Gupta and Aurangzeb Naqshbandi letters@hindustant­imes.com n

NEWDELHI: The political fight over an attempt to remove the Chief Justice of India escalated on Monday with Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu, the Vice President of India, rejecting a notice by the Opposition to the effect, and the Congress deciding to appeal his decision in the Supreme Court.

Naidu issued a 10-page order saying the notice — which had the signatures of 64 parliament­arians across seven parties — lacked substantia­l merit and that initiating a removal proceeding­s on such basis would “undermine the faith of the common person in the judicial system”.

It is “imperative” that one should have “extraordin­ary, important and substantia­l grounds for the removal of a judge,” Naidu said. “MPs who presented the motion are themselves unsure of the charges, as they use words like, ‘may have been’, ‘likely’, ‘appears to be’...” the order read.

Within hours, the Congress called the order “illegal” and said Naidu’s decision had “shattered” the confidence of people.

“To say the least, the order is unpreceden­ted, illegal, ill-advised and hasty,” said Congress leader Kapil Sibal, who is among the MPs who signed the removal petition.

With the Congress approachin­g the apex court, it has to be seen whether the CJI will, as “master of the roster”, decide who should hear this case, or recuse himself.

A senior government functionar­y cited the Judges (Inquiry) Act to say that Naidu had “the statutory right to accept or reject” such a notice. “Mere numbers do not set the process in motion,” he said, asking not to be named. That’s the opinion of eminent jurists as well, including Soli Sorabjee and Fali Nariman.

Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad accused the Congress of underminin­g “the

dignity of the judiciary” and said the party was “trying to run the country through the courts using false, half-baked and sponsored litigation­s”.

The Congress and six other opposition parties had on April 20 handed over to Naidu the notice for the CJI’s removal on five grounds of “misbehavio­ur”.

Naidu announced his rejection of the notice before the Supreme Court convened for the day on Monday.

Interestin­gly, court proceeding­s were delayed by around 15 minutes, although there was no explanatio­n for this.

The CJI and other judges gather at a customary tea meeting before proceeding­s begin and the speculatio­n was that this meeting had carried on for longer than usual.

THE TWO MEN WHO DROVE THE CJI REMOVAL MOTION ››P8

In my view, the Vice President’s decision to reject the removal motion is the correct decision. A public perception set in after the four judges held a press conference in January that they supported the impeachmen­t. But that is not true. That conference had nothing to with impeachmen­t.

I feel this impression should be removed or else the public will always suspect that they (four judges) were in favour of the impeachmen­t.

The point here is that judges come and go. However, it’s the Supreme Court, the final interprete­r of justice, which needs to be preserved.

The Vice President has the statutory power to reject or accept the petition under the law.

He needs to decide on the maintainab­ility of the petition. What he has done is correct because there is no credible allegation against the chief Justice.

Whoever wants to challenge (the Vice President’s decision) can do so. The law allows them to do so.

In such a situation he (CJI) cannot hear the case himself. He has to mark it to some other judge. The CJI cannot take the plea. There is nothing in the rules that bars him from marking the case to anyone else. He is the master of the roster.

It’s unfortunat­e and sad to see that advocates (who are MPs) have signed such a petition.

We advocates practise in courts. This is all happening in the political sphere. I am not a politician so I cannot say anything on numbers [whether Congress has enough support or not to have gotten the motion through had it been admitted].

NOTHING IN THE RULES BARS THE CJI FROM MARKING THE CASE TO ANYONE ELSE. HE IS THE MASTER OF THE ROSTER.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India