Naidu rejects move to impeach CJI
new delhi — In a setback to the opposition, the impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dipak Misra was on Monday rejected by Rajya Sabha (Upper House) Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu on the ground that there was lack of “credible and verifiable” information on charges of “misbehaviour” which undermined judiciary’s independence.
The petition to impeach Chief Justice Dipak Misra for “acts of misbehaviour” and misuse of authority was signed by 64 serving members of the upper house. It had also accused him of arbitrarily using his power to allot sensitive cases and questioned his conduct in the acquisition of land.
“... we cannot allow any of our pillars of governance to be weakened by any thought, word or action,” he said in a 10-page order, holding that admission of the notice was “neither desirable nor proper”.
“I am also aware that it is imperative that we should have extraordinary, important and substantial grounds for the removal of a judge,” he said in the order after holding legal consultations on Sunday.
The Chairman’s ruling came before proceedings opened in the Supreme Court on Monday apparently to enable the Chief Justice to continue his work uninterrupted.
“I have also gone through the comments made by 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 fir case for removal of judges,” Naidu said in his order.
“I have considered each of the allegations individually as well as collectively in the light of annexures annexed to the notice of the motion but also in the light of cogent, relevant material available in the form of judicial orders passed the apex court of the country. Based on all this, I have come to the conclusion that this motion does not deserve to be admitted.”
The Chairman held that since the notice was signed by 64 members, it met the requirement of Section 3(1)(b) of the Judges Inquiry Act for moving a motion. At the stage of admission, Naidu said he had to apply a test that if every statement stated in the petition was believed to be true, would it still amount to a case of “proved misbehaviour”. The Chairman referred to expressions “proved misbehaviour” and “incapacity” used in Article 124 (4) of the Constitution and said proved misbehaviour was an expression clearly distinguishable from misconduct as was apparent from the language of Article 124.
“The intent, gravity and onus are of a much higher degree. The prefix ‘proved’ places an obligation of actually proving the misbehaviour before the parliamentary procedure for removal of a judge can come into play,” he said.
Naidu said the MPs who presented the petition were unsure of their own case. Page one of the petition used phrases such as “the facts and circumstances relating to Prasad Education Trust case saw prima facie evidence suggesting that the CJI ‘may have been’ involved in a conspiracy of paying illegal gratification...”
Dealing with the allegations against the CJI of misusing his position as the master of roster, Naidu referred to a ruling of the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in November 2017 that the CJI had a prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases.
“Clearly, this is an internal matter to be resolved by the Supreme Court itself. Going through the five allegations mentioned in the notice, I am of the view they are neither tenable nor admissible. The allegations emerging from the present case have a serious tendency of undermining the independence of the judiciary which is the basic tenet of the constitution of India.
“Considering the totality of facts, I am of the firm opinion that it is neither legal nor desirable or proper to admit the notice of motion on any one of these grounds,” Naidu said.
A Supreme Court judge can be removed for misbehaviour or incapacity only by an order of the president after winning a majority in both houses of parliament and after obtaining at least two-thirds of votes from the house members in the same session. —
The prefix ‘proved’ places an obligation of actually proving the misbehaviour before the parliamentary procedure for removal of a judge can come into play.
We cannot allow any of our pillars of governance to be weakened by any thought, word or action. It is imperative that we should have ...substantial grounds for the removal of a judge. Venkaiah Naidu, Rajya Sabha Chairman
The order is unprecedented, illegal, ill-advised and hasty... Never before in India’s history had a motion moved by MPs been dismissed at the preliminary stage... Obviously there was some tearing hurry. Kapil Sibal, Congress leader
The vice-president has applied his mind. He has consulted legal experts and has come to a decision. We did not want the matter hanging indefinitely. Soli Sorabjee, eminent jurist