CASE DISMISSED WITHIN 72 HOURS
NOTICE OF CJI’S IMPEACHMENT LACKED SUBSTANTIAL MERIT; NEITHER DESIRABLE, NOR PROPER, RULES VP
Vice-President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday threw cold water on the notice for impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by the MPs of seven parties, saying it "lacked substantial merit" and its admission is "neither desirable nor proper."
His 10-page order on the notice came early in the day, possibly to end the CJI's dilemma of recusing, as demanded by the Congress on Sunday.
Naidu held that the notice has "virtually no concrete verifiable imputation and doesn't deserve to be admitted." Chief Justice Misra, who is to retire on October 2, held the court as usual.
Naidu said he had consulted constitutional experts, and took the quick decision in view of the severity of the charges against the CJI and unnecessary speculation. "We cannot allow any of our pillars of governance to be weakened by any thought, word or action," he said justifying rejection of the impeachment move.
His order says he had detailed personal conversations on all the aspects arising from the notice and had considered each of the allegations made in it individually as well as collectively. "Based on all this, I have come to the conclusion that this motion does not deserve to be admitted...’’
In the passing, Naidu also objected to the MPs going to the media even before he had examined the notice, violating the well-established parliamentary convention.
The order lists the five charges made against the CJI, saying the notice signed by 64 MPs meets the requirement of the Judges Inquiry Act that the motion be signed by not less than 50 members.
"At the stage of admission, I have to apply a test that if every statement stated in the petition is believed to be true, would it still amount to a case of 'proved misbehaviour' within the scope of the Constitution of India," Naidu said.
The judgment also says "he has to keep in mind the seriousness of the imputations and its indelible chilling effect on the public administration of justice and independence of the judiciary in the estimate of the general public."
In the instant case, Naidu said it was not feasible to consult the CJI as the notice is against him and so he "thought it fit to consult legal luminaries, constitutional experts and former Secretary Generals of both the houses, former law officers, law commission members and eminent jurists who generously shared their insights based on their long, rich experience."
He said he also went through "the comments made by a former Attorney General, constitutional experts and editors of prominent newspapers which are unequivocal and nearly unanimous that the present notice of motion before me is not a fit case for removal of a judge." He also had a detailed personal conversation with some of them.
Referring to the charges levelled in the notice, the phrases used by the MPs indicate "a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption," the order said, and they do not constitute proof "beyond reasonable doubt which is required to make out a case of proved misbehaviour."