ReaSONS CITeD By RaJya SaBha ChaIRMaN
a conjecture and an assumption. The case should not be ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which is required to make out a case of ‘proved misbehaviour’ under Article 124 (4), the Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu said. > 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, > 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...” > The motion also said that the CJI was “likely to fall” within the scope of investigation and that he “appears to have” anti-dated an administrative order. > In the absence of “credible and verifiable” information placed before him, it would be an “inappropriate and irresponsible act” to accept statements which have little empirical basis. > On a careful analysis and reflection, I find that there is virtually no concrete verifiable imputation. > Based on all this, I have come to the conclusion that this motion does not deserve to be admitted.