Tag: chief justice impeachment

Carpets, Bedsheets, Towels and Intrigue: The Story of Justice V. Ramaswami’s Impeachment

The incident of a judge facing ‘trial’ over reported excesses holds lessons that resonate in the present time.

“The place of justice is a hallowed place, and therefore not only the Bench, but also the foot space and precincts and purpose thereof ought to be preserved without scandal and corruption.”

– Francis Bacon

 

Rabi Ray was the Speaker of the ninth Lok Sabha which witnessed the V.P. Singh government born out of an unimaginable alliance between the Left and the Right to oust the Centre. 

In 1991, as the Lok Sabha faced premature dissolution on the fall of the Chandrashekhar government, 108 MPs cutting across party lines submitted an impeachment motion (pages 1, 2, 3, 4) against Justice V. Ramaswami, citing 14 charges.

Ray was under intense pressure to scuttle it. It is rumoured that a senior leader of the Congress who had been contemplating retirement from electoral politics, one Narasimha Rao, had led a delegation in March 1991 to Ray to adopt a soft approach towards the judge. Rao pleaded that Ramaswami had acted with great firmness against the terrorists who were plaguing the Punjab. 

The fact that this south Indian judge had many an admirer would be evident to any political novice, and Ray was a veteran – the delegation included P. Shiv Shankar, a known Rao-baiter.

Ray, however, was not moved and on the last day of the House, constituted an inquiry committee comprising Justices P.B. Sawant of Supreme Court, P.D. Desai who was then chief justice of the Bombay high court and O. Chinnappa Reddy who was a retired judge of the Supreme Court.  

This is the story of that impeachment.

Young Veeraswami Ramaswami, as a student of the Hindu High School in Srivilliputhur could not have imagined the infamy that posterity would have in store for him. He sought out law as a career and graduated from the Madras Law College. On January 31, 1971, after a stint at the bar, Ramaswami was elevated as a permanent judge of the Madras high court.

V. Ramaswami married Sarojini, the daughter of K. Veeraswami, who retired as chief justice of Madras high court and has a constitution bench judgment to his name on whether a judge could be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

 The seat of the scandal was however north of the Vindhyas. 

Also read: Retirement of Tainted Judge a Reminder of How the Executive Failed the Judiciary

It was in India’s first planned township beautifully crafted by Le Corbusier. When V.R. was sworn in as chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court on November 12, 1987, he was conscious that his judicial career was on the right track. He knew that someday he might even sit in India’s highest court. What he perhaps was not aware of was that his stint in Chandigarh would prove fatal.

When on October 6, 1989, V.R. was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge, he must have thought that Chandigarh was behind him.  He could not have been more wrong. In the middle of 1990, several papers carried reports about his lavish track record. 

During his stay in Chandigarh, the justice had spent a huge amount allegedly on “renovation” of his official residence and other personal expenses. Stories emerged about:

  • Purchase of furniture, furnishings and other articles in excess of and wholly disproportionate to the requirements of the official residence. For example, eight air conditioners were purchased for Rs 1,39,432. Innumerable number of quilts, mattresses, bed sheets, bed covers, pillow covers and blankets at Rs 28,785. As many as 96 towels and napkins at the cost of Rs 11,000. Bed and bath linen at Rs 39,785. A dining table at Rs 45,795. A sofa set was bought for Rs 58,909. A three-seater with a centre table, for Rs 58,509. Another three-seater with six sofa chairs and a teak wood centre table, for Rs 59,430.  Two sofa sets, for Rs 48,919. Another for Rs 14,051. Four dressing tables and stools for Rs 15,092, study tables for Rs 7,175, study chairs for Rs 4,750, four easy chairs for Rs 5,828. Three Godrej almirahs for Rs 3,019, 2,959 and 3,571 respectively.  Wall to wall carpeting for various rooms was procured for Rs 1,52,465. As many as 229 curtains were stitched for Rs 76,425.  Kitchenware at Rs 25,047. And then, 18 suitcases and brief cases were also purchased.
  • Claiming expenses of Rs 76,150 for a Madras telephone.
  • Spending Rs 9.10 lakh on phone calls at Rs 39,000 per month.
  • Taking Chandigarh cars to Madras while on vacation. An assistant registrar had to go by air to bring back the cars.
  • Ordering 25 silver maces at exorbitant rates.

Things came to such a pass that even the conservative Supreme Court Bar Association was prompted into passing a resolution, calling for V.R.’s impeachment and requesting the chief justice not to assign any work to the judge.

The matter was mentioned more than once in the Chief Justice of India’s court. On May Day, 1990, editor of the magazine The Lawyers, the indomitable Indira Jaising, forwarded to the CJI the April 1990 issue of her monthly magazine which contained the exposé on V.R. It had published the full text of the audit report of the Chandigarh administration and that was scandalous enough.

Thereafter, a galaxy of senior advocates, the attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, Parasaran, Venugopal and Dr Chitale met the CJIe, to request him to act.

Also read: The Only Time the Opposition Pulled Off a Motion Against a Sitting Judge

On July 20, 1990, Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee took the unprecedented step of reading out a ‘Statement to the Bar of the Supreme Court’ at the end of judicial work. It referred to Jaising’s article and entreaties by doyens of the Bar only to express, “Legally and constitutionally the Chief Justice of India, as such, has no right or authority to inquire into the conduct of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court”. 

Chief Justice of India Sabyasachi Mukherjee

He concluded by saying that on July 18, 1990 he had advised Ramaswami to “desist from discharging judicial functions so long as the investigations continued and his name was cleared on this aspect.”

V.R. applied for six weeks’ leave with effect from July 23, 1990.

The Chief Justice of India constituted an internal inquiry committee headed by Justice BC Ray with Justices Jaggannath Shetty and Venkatachaliah as members. Right from when the scandal broke, V.R. tried to give the impression “of being a judge who was being prosecuted”.  He told the committee that two or three judges of the Punjab and Haryana high court were plotting against him.

His lawyer Kapil Sibal would later go on to allege before the Lok Sabha that a particular member of the high court staff was behind the whole “conspiracy”.

A massive heart attack in London on September 25, 1990, tragically ensured that after H.J. Kania, Sabyasachi Mukherjee was India’s second chief justice to die in harness. The B.C. Ray Committee gave a clean chit to V.R. and Mukherjee’s successor, Chief Justice Ranganath Mishra, who would go on the serve as a Rajya Sabha member from the Congress party, attempted to restore judicial duties to V.R. 

Also read: The Supreme Court and the Need for Judicial Discipline

The bar erupted in outrage. Nani Palkhivala observed, “There is danger in allowing the bar to pass judgement on a judge. But what is the option before the bar? There is no machinery to bring errant judges to book”.

Meanwhile, India’s politics had just witnessed a tectonic shift. Rajiv Gandhi, who had brought Rabi Ray’s speakership to a premature end, tragically did not live to see a new speaker. His assassination in Sreeperambudur in the midst of a general election to constitute a new Lok Sabha, witnessed a skewed result. 

The states which went to elections before May 21, 1991, the day of Rajiv’s assassination, had not been too kind to the Congress. In contrast, the states, primarily in south India, that did go to polls after the tragedy witnessed an outpouring of sympathy for the slain leader’s party. Kerala which had polls before and after the event bears testimony to this phenomenon.  

Resultantly, Congress, with a heavy south Indian contingent of MPs, formed a minority government under India’s first south Indian prime minister, Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao also known as “PV”. Remember this was that same about-to-retire politician, whose plea to go soft on the south Indian judge had been crushed by Speaker Ray.

Narasimha Rao’s government was of the view that with the birth of the 10th Lok Sabha, the impeachment motion of the 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha had lapsed. It refused to take steps to operationalise the inquiry committee.

P.V. Narasimha Rao. Credit: PTI

P.V. Narasimha Rao. Credit: PTI

Finally, it took the sub-committee on judicial accountability led by the indefatigable Hardev Singh to institute a petition seeking directions to the Rao government to enable the inquiry committee to function and to restrain V.R. from performing judicial functions. The Supreme Court Bar Association also joined in with its petition.

Also read: How the Judiciary Defied the Government to Uphold Constitutional Values During the Emergency

Finally, a constitution bench in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India held that the inquiry committee would survive the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The government had no choice but to operationalise the committee again.

Ramaswami was leaving nothing to chance. He picked a young lawyer, Jagdish Khehar, to defend him in the inquiry.  This young lawyer would one day go on to be the Chief Justice of India. Khehar was led by Ranjit Kumar who would go on to be India’s Solicitor General. As the committee’s proceedings reached finality, by a letter dated May 10, 1992, to his brother Justice Sawant, V.R. sought a copy of the report to explore avenues of seeking “redress in Court of Law”.  

On May 15, 1992, the secretary of the committee informed V.R. that the committee would abide by the decision of the court as the matter was before the constitution bench.

V.R’s wife Sarojini promptly filed an Article 32 petition seeking a direction that a copy of the report be supplied and the committee be restrained from forwarding the report to parliament. When the writ petition came up for hearing on July, 21, 1992, Sarojini’s counsel Kapil Sibal was told by the court that V.R. had not been impleaded as a party despite the fact that the wife’s rights flowed through him. Would the husband be bound by the adjudication of his wife’s case?

On the next day, i.e. July 21, 1992, Sibal’s advocate on record, Rajit Kumar, filed RV’s undertaking that he indeed would be bound.

On August 27, 1992, the constitution bench of Justices J.S. Verma, Kasliwal, K. Ramaswamy, Reddy and Agrawal, ruled that V.R. was indeed entitled to a copy of the report and have his response to the same considered by parliament. As the Speaker had not been impleaded, no directions against him could be passed. The inquiry committee was “requested” to withhold its report “for a reasonable time,” so that VR’s response would also be available.  

V.R. had dug in his heels and he was ready to fight street to street like the Battle of Berlin.

The PB Sawant Inquiry Committee concluded that V.R. was “guilty of wilful and gross misuse of office, purposeful and persistent negligence in the discharge of duties, intentional and habitual extravagance at the cost of the exchequer, moral turpitude by using public funds for private purposes in diverse ways and reckless disregard of statutory rules and brings disrepute to the high office and dishonour to the institution of the judiciary and undermines the faith and confidence which the public reposes in the administration of justice.”

The stage was set for parliament to sit in judgment. There was no precedent. On May 15, 1970, 199 Lok Sabha MPs led by Samyukta Socialist Party leader S.M. Joshi had petitioned Speaker G.S. Dhillon against Justice J.C. Shah. Chief Justice Hidyatullah had reached out to Speaker Dhillon and convinced him to squash it.

Also read: The Ones That Didn’t Make It to NYT: The Valiant Bar and Bench During Indira’s Emergency

When the removal motion was taken up in the Lok Sabha on May 10, 1993. The levels of excitement to witness a historic first were unprecedented. The visitors’ gallery was packed to capacity with those who had managed to obtain the coveted passes to the “distinguished visitors’ gallery”. Nalini Chidambaram, wife of P. Chidambaram, and Kiran Chaudhary, daughter-in-law of Haryana Chief Minister Bansi Lal, were among the lucky few.

V.R. was ably defended by the noted Kapil Sibal who held the floor of the Lok Sabha for five hours. Sibal was the only lawyer to have addressed the parliament in that capacity. It is not clear whether the other lawyers of Team Ramaswamy, J.S. Khehar and Ranjit Kumar were also present in parliament. Years later, Sibal would enter the same chamber, this time in 2004 as an elected member representing the Chandni Chowk parliamentary constituency.

When the lawyer’s submissions were over, Speaker Shivraj Patil asked those sitting in the visitors’ gallery to remove themselves.  Now the time had come for the legislators to judge!

The conclusion was foregone when opposition parties issued whips to their MPs and the Congress chose to leave it to the “conscience” of its members. Brahma Chellaney says that the decision was officially reversed at Prime Minister Rao’s instance.

When the motion was finally put to vote, there were 196 votes in favour of impeachment. While there was no vote against the motion, 205 members, mostly Congress’s south Indian MPs abstained. As the requisite two-third majority eluded the motion, it fell and V.R. survived the day to walk into the sunset of his retirement on Valentine’s Day, 1994.

Many contemporary commentators felt that Team V.R. had been successful in tapping the latent parochial instincts of the Members of the Lok Sabha by converting the issue from one of judicial corruption to one of north-south divide and victimisation of a South Indian justice by north Indian vested interests.

Justice Sawant, who had headed the committee, commented, “The system to remove the judges is impractical, cumbersome and heavily dependent on politicians.” According to Prashant Bhushan, the system had “undoubtedly failed and has been shown to be completely outdated and ineffective. An entirely new machinery is urgently required to restore accountability of the judiciary.”

Also read: SC Starts Contempt Proceedings Against Prashant Bhushan, Twitter for Unspecified Tweets

Journalist Manoj Mitta was of the opinion that V.R. was a “Congress(I) appointed judge and his removal could have undermined the party’s credibility. Especially as Rajiv Gandhi had sent him as chief justice to Chandigarh to tackle terrorist cases. Besides (sic), his son is a Congress (I) MLA in Tamil Nadu. And the lawyer who argued his case in the Lok Sabha, Kapil Sibal, is also a Congress (I) member.”

It was rumoured that V.R. had given his word that he would resign if the motion was not carried. However, tasting parliamentary success, he went back on his word. Though he wanted to again sit on the bench as if the storm was only in a tea cup, Chief Justice Venkatachlaiah would have none of it. He refused to allot work to him and he had to stay at home, drawing his salary till he retired a year later.

Some may see the irony in fact that on retirement, V.R. went back to his house in Madras. The house was named Coin House. 

V.R. was appointed head of Tamil Nadu Law Commission by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and it was rumoured that, given the expertise that life’s experience had given him, he advised the resident of Poes Garden on her disproportionate assets case. V.R.’s son Sanjay, who had married the sister of film actress Sridevi, was a Congress MLA from Sivakasi who shifted his allegiance to Amma when she became sympathetic towards his father.

V.R. was not one to go down quietly. In the 1999 elections, he contested from the Sivakasi constituency as an All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam candidate and lost to the charismatic Vaiko. 

Sanjoy Ghose is a labour lawyer in Delhi.

Congress MPs Challenge Rejection of Impeachment Notice Against CJI in SC

Rajya Sabha chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu had on April 23 rejected the notice, given by opposition parties led by the Congress for impeachment of the chief justice of India.

New Delhi: Two Congress MPs today (May 7) moved the Supreme Court to challenge the rejection of the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra by the Rajya Sabha chairman on the ground that there was “no proved misbehaviour”.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is also one of the signatories of the impeachment notice, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar.

The bench, also comprising Justice S.K. Kaul, asked Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to mention the matter before the chief justice of India for urgent listing, citing a constitution bench judgment on powers of master of roster.

The two leaders who have moved the petition are Rajya Sabha MPs Partap Singh Bajwa, who is from Punjab, and Amee Harshadray Yajnik, who is from Gujarat.

Both Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come tomorrow so they could take a call on the issue.

Sibal said he was aware of the constitution bench judgment on master of roster, and added that since the impeachment notice concerns the CJI, the senior-most judge of the apex court can order for listing.

“I am aware of the procedure but it can’t be mentioned anywhere else. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. I am just asking for urgent listing and not seeking any interim relief,” Sibal said.

He said the CJI cannot order for listing, therefore the senior-most judge of this court must pass some orders as it was a matter of constitutional importance.

According to Sibal, this type of situation had not arisen before and the court should pass an order on who would deal with the matter and how it would be dealt with.

Justice Kaul asked Sibal, who has drafted the petition, whether the plea had been numbered.

Sibal replied that they have filed a petition in the Registry but they are not willing to number it.

“The procedure of this court is very simple. I have practised in this court for past 45 years. The Registrar can’t take orders from the CJI in this matter. The CJI can’t delegate its master of roster powers to the Registrar. All I am asking Justice Chelameswar to consider this,” Sibal said.

Justice Chelameswar replied, “I am on the verge of retiring.”

Sibal “requested” the court to pass some orders on when the petition is to be heard and who can hear the matter.

Advocate Bhushan, who appeared along with Sibal, said according to rules, the CJI is disabled to pass any order and only the senior-most judge can decide on the listing of the petition.

Rajya Sabha chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu had on April 23 rejected the notice, given by opposition parties led by the Congress for impeachment of the chief justice of India.

Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had in April third week moved a notice before the chairman for impeachment of the CJI on five grounds of “misbehaviour”.

This is the first time that an impeachment notice has been filed against a sitting CJI.

The CJI Has a God-Sent Opportunity to Assert the Judiciary’s Independence

The Modi government’s rejection of Justice K.M. Joseph presents a divided judiciary with a reason to close ranks. The onus is also on the Chelameswar Four to help Chief Justice Dipak Misra do the right thing.

Just when Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra needed to dispel doubts that the judiciary under his watch had not yielded to the executive, the Modi regime has cockily nixed the Supreme Court collegium’s nominee for judgeship, K.M. Joseph.

Having gone out of its way to ring-fence the CJI from the impeachment proceedings which the Opposition – unwisely – wished to launch, the Bharatiya Janata Party leadership has revealed, unsurprisingly, its intent to not just dismantle the collegium system but also to refashion the judiciary into a subordinate branch of government. The Modi power vertical cannot be faulted for its exquisite ruthlessness.

It is no longer important to argue that this is precisely the thrust of the argument made by the Chelameswar Four. Nor does it help anyone’s cause to argue that Chief Justice Misra has turned out to be unequal to the dignity and obligations of his high office. The challenge before all thoughtful and concerned public women and men is to think of ways to help him defend the independence of the judiciary at a time when it is clearly under pressure. It is one of those painful moments when every effort should be made to ensure that the limits and insecurities of one man do not end up becoming a reason for the decline of an institution. In fact, Chief Justice Misra needs to be rescued from his own unsought reputation for partisanship.

Notwithstanding M. Venkaiah Naidu’s gross abuse of his office as chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the move to impeach Chief Justice Misra was utterly unwise and totally unbecoming of a political party that ought to take pride in being an architect of our abiding constitutional arrangements. It is not just that the Congress’s clever legal managers have needlessly pushed the CJI into a partisan corner; what is especially disquieting is that the party has set a very unhealthy and dangerous precedent.

Still, political stupidities, tactical errors and procedural correctness apart, we need not lose sight of the larger play of institutional forces.

It is imperative to recognise the inherent tension – often creative, sometime dysfunctional – between the executive and the judiciary. Strong governments, confident of their strength in the Lok Sabha, have always resented any kind of judicial oversight or restraint. Sooner or later, a strong leader, with delusions of greatness and grandeur, comes to regard the “unelected” judges as a nuisance, a bunch of robed gentlemen who needed to be shown their place. How to “fix” the judiciary to its convenience is one of the central, unspoken but pressing, pre-occupations of every government. The one Modi heads is no exception.

On their part, the judges too just do not roll over. Whenever they sense a weakening at the core of Delhi’s political power structure, they have exhibited a tribal tendency to move in. Sooner or later, of course, this invites a counter-move.

Even though we are all happy to subscribe to the bogus conceit that the judiciary is – and, ought to be ­– above politics, we know that politics is never very far away from the corridors of our higher courts. Not because the judges are political partisans, but because the higher judiciary’s pronouncements have political consequences. Judges may not be party men but they do have their preferences and predilections – even if, over the years, they have learnt to hide their passions and prejudices under black robes.

The conundrum the Supreme Court judges find themselves in today can be traced back to 1967, when a sitting chief justice (K. Subba Rao) chose to receive two opposition leaders (M.R. Masani and Balraj Madhok) and allowed himself to be persuaded to become a presidential candidate against the ruling party nominee, Zakir Hussain. That was the judiciary’s – or, rather, one judge’s – first, open and unapologetic, foray into realpolitik.

Chief Justice Subba Rao’s failed presidential bid, naturally and unavoidably, produced its own repercussions on the institutional balance. As it happened, however, the political class was too internally distracted at the time – those were the days of the great Congress split, bank nationalisation, abolition of privy purses, etc – to want to do something about it. To be sure, Indira Gandhi did seek to do something about the imbalance the moment she got the Lok Sabha numbers and the political space: three Supreme Court judges got famously superseded.

Since 1967, the executive-judiciary balance has seen many ups and downs, and political leaders and political passions of the day have made demands on judicial equanimity. However, the executive-judiciary equilibrium has been shaped mostly by the quality of judicial leadership at the apex court.

In this regard, Chief Justice Misra has turned out to be a disappointing leader. May be it is the nature of our current politics that creates such overwhelming circumstances for some of the judges that they become oblivious to the demands of judicial independence. As CJI, Justice Misra has allowed internal harmony to erode; the esprit de corps has evaporated. Instead of solidarity and brotherhood, there is suspicion and weariness. The Chelameswar Four have publicly advertised how the rules of etiquette have been breached and how internal conversations have broken down. Chief Justice Misra was tested as a leader and obviously failed the test in the eyes of his senior-most peers. Consequently, the apex court’s reputation and prestige have suffered precipitously.

There is a simple lesson here: no judge should play poker with politicians. The political class, especially its ruling faction, seeks acquiescence, not partnership.

The Modi government cannot be over-faulted for wanting to control and calibrate the judiciary. It takes pride in its no-nonsense approach to matters of state; it is simply not prepared to countenance judges who disagree with it. And, naturally, it neither forgets nor forgives. It is virtually impossible to avoid the inference that Justice K.M. Joseph has been made to pay a price for giving a particular judgment – the same charge that the government’s partisans were correct in making against the Congress for wanting to impeach Chief Justice Misra for the Loya case verdict, undoubtedly a grossly flawed judgment.

The Joseph rejection has presented the divided judiciary with a reason to close ranks. The onus is also on the Chelameswar Four to help the CJI rediscover the joys of institutional pride. As soon as possible, he should reiterate the collegium’s choice. Justice Joseph’s name should be sent again to the government. Chief Justice Misra has a god-sent opportunity to clear his good name, regain his moral authority and resuscitate the judiciary’s institutional elan.

Harish Khare is a journalist who lives and works in Delhi. He was, until recently, editor-in-chief of The Tribune.

Justices Gogoi, Lokur Urge CJI Misra to Call ‘Full Court’ to Discuss SC’s Future

A full court meeting of the apex court is usually convened by the CJI in situations when a matter of public importance relating to the judiciary comes up. Such meetings involve all the judges.

New Delhi: Supreme Court Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur have written to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, urging him to call a “full court” on the judicial side to discuss “institutional issues” and the “future” of India’s highest court of the judiciary, Indian Express reported. Justice Gogoi is expected to succeed CJI Misra who demits office in October.

The brief, two-sentence letter by the apex court’s senior judges was delivered the CJI on April 22, two days after seven opposition parties – led by Congress – moved an impeachment motion against Misra. The motion was rejected by the Rajya Sabha chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu on April 23 due to “lack of substantial merit”.

The CJI, on his part, has not yet responded to the letter. Sources told the daily that the issue of calling a full court was raised by several judges during the customary morning meeting of all SC judges on April 23. CJI Misra, however, was non-committal on the matter.

According to Indian Express, a full court meeting of the apex court is usually convened by the CJI in situations when a matter of public importance relating to the judiciary comes up. Such meetings involve all the judges.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Credit: PTI

This, however, is not the first time that top Supreme Court judges have written to CJI Misra. Over the past few months, the chief justice has received a series of such letters. According to Scroll, earlier this month, Justice Kurian Joseph wrote to the CJI and urged the apex court to act against the delay in approving two appointments to the court despite the collegium’s recommendation. The appointments in question are of Justice K.M. Joseph and Indu Malhotra. Justice Joseph, in his letter, had then stated that the government “sitting over the recommendations of the collegium doing nothing, in administrative law, is abuse of power”.

In March, Justice Jasti Chelameswar had also written to the chief justice to highlight the government’s interference in judiciary. Taking exception to Karnataka chief justice launching an inquiry against a subordinate judge based on a complaint forwarded directly by the Union government, Chelameswar had sought a full court sitting to discuss the issue. According to Indian Express, CJI Misra did not reply to the letter or call a full court, as was requested.

Before that, in an open letter in January, former judges had written to Misra, urging him to ensure that ‘master of roster’ power is not misused. This was just two days after Supreme Court Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph held a historic press conference in Delhi to discuss administrative issues plaguing the Supreme Court and raised questions about the  the chief justice’s procedure to allocates cases to the different benches.

Why Naidu’s Refusal to Admit Impeachment Motion Won’t Survive Judicial Scrutiny

It is not for the vice president to decide whether the charges levelled by MPs in their motion amount to “proved misbehaviour” on the part of the chief justice. That prerogative, by law and precedent, belongs to parliament.

New Delhi: In refusing to admit the motion seeking initiation of impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice of India, Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu – who is also ex-officio chairman of the Rajya Sabha – provided a reasoned decision running into 10 pages. However, his reasoning is not likely to withstand legal scrutiny, if challenged via a writ in the Supreme Court.

Section 3 (1) of the Judges Inquiry Act says that the speaker of the Lok Sabha or, as the case may be, the chairman of the Rajya Sabha may – after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him – has the power to either admit the motion or refuse to do so.

Thus it is clearly envisaged that the chairman may refuse to admit a motion duly presented to him by MPs. If he refuses to admit the motion, he is, of course, not under any obligation to constitute a committee consisting of three members for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a judge is prayed for.

The Act, however, is silent on the circumstances under which the chairman or the speaker can refuse to admit a motion.

Mistaken assumption

The first flaw in Naidu’s decision is that he erroneously assumes that his responsibility to admit – or reject – the motion is a parliamentary procedure. Thus Naidu cites the phrase “proved misbehaviour” used in Article 124(4) of the constitution on impeachment, and contends that the prefix “proved’ places an obligation of actually proving the misbehaviour before the actual procedure for removal of a judge can come into play. “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 Article 124(4) of the constitution of India”, he writes in his order.

This is where he has gone wrong.

Article 124(4) reads:

“A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the president passed after an address by each house of parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that house and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the house present and voting has been presented to the president in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

Based on this standard of “proved misbehaviour”, Naidu punches holes in the motion by pointing out references which suggest that the MPs, who lent their signatures to the motion, are themselves unsure about whether the allegations can be substantiated.

He refers to the use of phrases such as the CJI “may have been involved in a conspiracy of paying illegal gratification”, the CJI “was likely to fall within the scope of investigation”, and “the CJI appears to have ante-dated an administrative order” in the motion, and concludes: “The phrases used by the hon’ble members of parliament themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainly does not constitute proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, which is required to make out a case of “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124(4).”

Naidu may well be correct in his analysis of the motion. But it is not for him to insist on proof of misbehaviour. This is because the parliamentary procedure for the removal of a judge does not come into play with the mere admittance of a motion, as he assumes.

For his erroneous assumption, Naidu relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Mehar Singh Saini (2010). This is his second mistake.

The 2010 case involved the removal and suspension of a member of the Public Service Commission under Article 317 of the constitution. The expression in clause (1) of Article 317 used for describing the ground of removal is ‘the ground of misbehaviour’ while in clause (4) of Article 124 dealing with judges, it is, ‘the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity’.

The adjudication of the ground of misbehaviour under Article 317 (1) is to be by the Supreme Court, whereas in the case of a judge, who is a higher constitutional functionary, the requirement of judicial determination of the ground is reinforced by the addition of the word ‘proved’ in Article 124(4) and the requirement of law for this purpose under Article 124(5).   The Supreme Court adds in this judgment that the expression ‘misbehaviour’ generally refers to a conduct which might erode the faith and confidence of the public at large in such constitutional office.

Thus In Re: Mehar Singh Saini does not throw any light on when a parliamentary procedure to remove a judge kicks in after the motion is presented by the members of the house to its presiding office.

The Ramaswami precedent

However, In Re: Mehar Singh Saini relies on another previous judgment of the Supreme Court, Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v Union of India, delivered by a constitution bench on October 29, 1991. In this case, the speaker of the Lok Sabha had admitted the motion for the removal of Justice V.Ramaswami of the Supreme Court, upon a notice given by 108 members of 9th Lok Sabha, for his alleged misconduct during his term as the chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court. Subsequently, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, and its term came to an end.

The Centre, after the constitution of the 10th Lok Sabha following general elections in 1991, had taken the view that the motion – as well as the decision of the speaker admitting it – had lapsed consequent on the dissolution of the previous Lok Sabha. Therefore, it did not let the inquiry committee set up by the previous speaker to probe the allegations against Justice V.Ramaswami discharge its functions.

At that point, the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability – constituted by the All India Convention on Judicial Accountability, and the Supreme Court Bar Association – filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court, seeking to prosecute the matter in the larger public interest.  The petitioners sought directions to the Centre to take immediate steps to enable the inquiry committee to discharge its functions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act and, second, that during the pendency of the proceedings before the committee, Justice Ramaswami should be restrained from performing judicial functions and from exercising judicial powers. The petitioners also contended that impeachment motions were sui generis in their nature, and, therefore, did not lapse.

The constitution bench by a majority of 4:1 held that a motion under section (2) of the Act does not lapse upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The bench, however, refused to restrain Justice Ramaswami from performing judicial functions, and exercising judicial powers, leaving it to his sense of propriety, and to the judicial tradition symbolised by the views of the CJI. The bench expressed the hope that a desirable convention would be followed by the judge in that situation, which would not require the exercise of a power of suspension, during the inquiry.

But what the bench observed on the question of when the parliamentary procedure for impeachment would kick in, is relevant to understand the present controversy. The bench held:

“The constitutional process for removal of a judge up to the point of admission of the motion, constitution of the committee, and the recording of findings of the committee are not, strictly, proceedings in the houses of parliament.”

The bench further explained:

“The scheme of Articles 124(4) and (5) is that the entire process of removal is in two parts – the first part, under clause (5) from initiation to investigation and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity is covered by an enacted law, parliament’s role being only legislative as in all the laws enacted by it, the second part under clause (4) is in parliament and that process commences only on proof of misbehaviour or incapacity in accordance with the law enacted under clause (5). Thus the first part is entirely statutory, while the second part alone is the parliamentary process.”

The bench then added:

“The constitution intended a clear provision for the first part covered fully by enacted law, the validity of which and the process thereunder being subject to judicial review independent of any political colour and after proof it was intended to be a parliamentary process. It is this synthesis made in our constitutional scheme for removal of a judge.”

Precedent distorted

In his third mistake, Naidu wrongly cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.Krishna Swami v Union of India (1993), which also revolved around Justice Ramaswamy’s impeachment matter.  As he relied on this judgment for guidance, let us examine the relevant paragraph cited by him. The crucial sentence is this:

“He (the chairman) need not weigh the pros and cons to find prima facie case. He acts neither as a quasi-judicial nor an administrative authority but purely as a constitutional functionary and with high sense of responsibility and on due consideration of ‘the record’ and arrives at a decision to admit or refuse to admit the motion to remove the judge.”

However, the factual matrix of M. Krishna Swami is such that it does not support Naidu’s reliance on it. The petitioner in this case was aggrieved that the then speaker of the Lok Sabha had admitted the motion for removal of the Justice  V. Ramaswami. In other words, the Supreme Court made these observations to justify the admission of the motion by the speaker. Naidu, however, uses the same observations to justify his refusal to admit the motion! After reading it again and again, one wonders which part of the paragraph convinced Naidu that the motion deserved to be rejected.

Merely claiming that he consulted many constitutional experts, as required by the Act, is not sufficient to show why his decision is justified. Naidu seems to have emphasised these procedural aspects to answer the possible challenge that he did not apply his mind before refusing to admit the motion. Still, the speed with which he took the decision – in order to make it public before 10.30 in the morning when the Supreme Court judges begin hearings for the day – is surely astonishing.

Had Naidu cited the entire paragraph 44 of the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Krishna Swami   – he has cited only one part of this paragraph, that too selectively – he could have got the necessary guidance as to how to decide the motion before him. The portions which he did not cite, read as follows:

“Existence of definite material or evidence in support of the grounds of the motion, before initiation of the motion – for removal of the judge is, thus, a condition precedent.  Lest it would be an open invitation to initiate, for obvious reasons, proceedings to remove the judge and then resort to collecting perjured evidence in support thereof against the judge which is subversive of judicial independence and a death-knell to rule of law. Action in any other way, the speaker would forfeit the trust reposed by the founding fathers of the constitution in that office as well as the confidence of the House of People, i.e., the people of Bharat themselves.”

Thus it is the existence of definite material or evidence in support of the grounds of the motion – and not whether the material submitted constitutes “proof” of the misbehaviour of the judge concerned – which should have been the criterion for Naidu to accept or reject the motion.

Unfortunately, Naidu’s order smacks of poor understanding of the law and precedent, and pre-empts the role of the inquiry committee – which he did not set up, and which alone can determine whether the material submitted by the MPs constitutes proof of misbehaviour of the judge in question.

It is true that the motion to remove the CJI has no prospect of being carried, with the proposers of the motion being vastly outnumbered by those against. But, as pointed out by the eminent academic, Mohan Gopal – who was the jurist member in the inquiry committee set up to probe the allegations against Justice P. D. Dinakaran – the first goal envisaged in the constitutional and statutory provisions is establishing the truthfulness of the charges of misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge. This is an end in itself – and not merely a means to the end of removal from office – because the polity of any country will be severely harmed if serious allegations of misbehaviour of high officials are allowed to be left unaddressed.

The Only Time the Opposition Pulled Off a Motion Against a Sitting Judge

While in the case of Justice Ramaswami the Lok Sabha speaker initiated an inquiry despite intense pressure from the ruling establishment, Vice President Naidu has dismissed the Rajya Sabha MPs’ notice against CJI Misra.

New Delhi: On April 20, leaders of seven opposition parties handed over a notice – signed by 71 Rajya Sabha MPs – to the chairman of the upper house, Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, seeking the impeachment of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.

With it, a new chapter got appended to the existing record of steps taken by parties not in power to remove a judge .

Three days later, Naidu, on April 23, rejected the notice which claimed judicial impropriety against the CJI on five counts. Among the allegations are charges of bribery in the Prasad Medical College case and abuse of judicial and administrative power in order to hear the medical college case, besides allegedly giving a false affidavit to procure land when he was  lawyer in Odisha.

While this is the first time that a removal notice against the head of the country’s highest court has been brought in, it’s not the first time the judiciary has experienced an impeachment move.

In 1991, a removal notice was brought in by 108 Lok Sabha MPs of the National Front, Left parties and the Bharatiya Janata Party against Justice V. Ramaswami, then a Supreme Court judge, for allegations of wrongdoing pertaining to his tenure as chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court. Rabi Ray, who was speaker of the Lok Sabha, reportedly came under intense pressure from the government not to allow the motion in the lower house. Yet, he went ahead, on the last day of the Ninth Lok Sabha.

Juxtaposing that episode with the April 20 one, there are interesting similarities in how a ruling party typically reacts to a removal notice. Both the chapters have some common players too, particularly Kapil Sibal.

Justice Ramaswami served as chief justice of the Punjab and Haryana high court between November 1987 and October 1989. before being promoted to the Supreme Court as a judge. In mid-1990, several media reports accused him of spending an exorbitant amount on his official residence in Chandigarh – including purchasing expensive carpets – and of objecting to an audit. The Bar Council of India, along with some opposition MPs, approached the then CJI Sabyasachi Mukharji to take note of it. In July 1990, the CJI advised Ramaswami to desist from carrying out judicial functions till an investigation was done and his name was cleared.

Justice Ramaswami, thereafter, went on leave. The three-judge committee set up by the CJI submitted its report in November 1991 to Justice Ranganath Misra, who had succeeded Justice Mukherjee after his demise.

In the June 4, 1993 cover story for Frontline, Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan wrote that the committee was of the opinion that “If an inference of moral turpitude became inescapable could the judge be considered disentitled from discharging judicial functions. The committee further advised the Chief Justice ‘to consider whether such unseemly controversy could be put to rest by requesting Justice Ramaswami to make good the value of these items (which were allegedly misappropriated by him) without prejudice to his stand and contentions in the matter.’ On this report, Ranganath Misra ended the five-month leave of Ramaswami who resumed work in December 1990.”

Misra, by the way, is the uncle of the present CJI Dipak Misra.

However, more media reports surfaced indicting Ramaswami of administrative and financial malfeasance (such as, sending his official vehicle to Chennai for a family wedding, Rs 9.1 lakh bill on residential telephones in just 22 months) and embezzlement of expensive goods from his official residence. This led the Bar Council to pass a resolution on February 1 that year to seek his removal.

On February 29, 1991, 108 MPs of opposition parties submitted a notice to speaker Ray seeking a motion on his removal in the Lok Sabha. They were eight more than the minimum required number needed in the lower house to bring in such a motion. Unlike in the Rajya Sabha, where the minimum number is set at 50 MPs.

The MPs brought in 11 charges against the judge based on the audit reports of the high court and the accountant general’s office besides reports of a district judges’ committee set up by the high court to probe the charges.

The government of the day, headed by Chandrashekhar as prime minister with outside support from the Congress, mounted enormous pressure on Ray not to admit it. Rajiv Gandhi sent two Congress aides from Andhra Pradesh, P.V. Narasimha Rao and B. Shankaranand, to persuade the speaker to reject the notice. According to media reports at the time, the duo apparently argued for Ramaswami, stating that he refused bail to several terrorists involved in the Khalistan movement and by doing so served the cause of unity and integrity of India. Bhushan’s report said Gandhi himself called Ray with the same plea.

Ray, though, went with the audit reports and admitted the motion on March 12, 1991, the last day of the Ninth Lok Sabha. After the house transacted all business that day, while the members thought the house would be adjourned sine die, the speaker, instead admitted the impeachment motion. Ray formed a committee, as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act comprising Justices P.B. Sawant, P.D. Desai and O. Chinnappa Reddy.

Interestingly, the government tried to stall the process by refusing to issue the required notification to the committee to begin work. It was based on advice given by the then attorney general G. Ramaswamy and law minister Subramanian Swamy that the motion lapsed with the dissolution of the house.

In regard to the recent notice against CJI, Arun Jaitley – predictably of the ruling party – as well as the law minister, came out against it. Calling it a “revenge petition”, Jaitley said, “It is an attempt to intimidate a judge and send a message to other judges, that if you don’t agree with us, 50 MPs are enough for a revenge action. The charges read out are those which have been settled by judicial orders or by precedent. Some issues are stale, trivial and have nothing to do with judicial functions.”

Congress MP Sibal, who defended Justice Ramaswami during the removal motion in parliament then, reminded Jaitley in an interview to the Times of India on April 23, “When Justice (Soumitra) Sen was removed (in 2011), Jaitley (then) said, When this divine function of deciding the fate of others is bestowed in a judge, we expect him to perform it with the highest standards of scholarship and utmost impartiality. He must be detached from all collateral persuasions.”

In the Ramaswami case, hearing a petition by a bunch of SC lawyers, the apex court finally ruled against the government’s stand. In January 1992, the committee submitted its report and put together a chargesheet against Justice Ramaswami stating 14 counts of alleged wrongdoing. Without responding to the charges, Ramaswami questioned the jurisdiction of the inquiry committee, leading the committee to proceed on its mandate without his cooperation.

Meanwhile, a Congress MP from Ramaswami’s home state Tamil Nadu, M. Krishnaswamy, filed a petition in the Supreme Court through Congress member and lawyer Sibal, questioning the jurisdiction of the committee. Though the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, Ramaswami’s wife submitted another petition seeking a copy of the committee’s confidential report which was readied in June 1992, before it was submitted to the speaker arguing that he won’t be able to defend himself in parliament. The Supreme Court thereafter ruled that the justice would get an opportunity for judicial review even though the parliament voted for his removal.

Five months after the report was submitted to the speaker, it was tabled in the Lok Sabha in December 1992.

On May 10, 1993, the impeachment motion was put before the house for a debate. “After the opening speech of Somnath Chatterjee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) recommending the adoption of the motion, counsel for the judge, Kapil Sibal, was by an unprecedented procedure allowed to address the House. Sibal made a six-hour presentation, hailed for its eloquence, by which he sought to show that there was no substance in the charges found proved by the committee and that many of them in any case were trivial. He ridiculed the motion for the removal of a judge “for purchases of a few pieces of carpet or a few suitcases.” By referring to various statements made by the judge in his reply sent to parliament and to various documents filed by him in his reply, Sibal sought to demonstrate that the charges could not stand. Sibal’s lengthy presentation was heard by a packed House and it impressed many, wrote Bhushan.

Just like the CJI removal notice led the Biju Janata Dal to oppose it, presumably because Dipak Misra belongs to Odisha, Congress MPs from Tamil Nadu too put a lot of pressure on their party then to defeat the motion against Ramaswami and even issued a statement to the media.

During the debate, George Fernandes, then of Janata Dal, read out details of the committee’s report, leading him to puncture Sibal’s argument of Ramaswami being a “man of simple habits living alone in Chandigarh” by pointing out that the audit reports said he spent Rs 40,000 on towels, tablecloths and bed linen, spent Rs 2000 per day to run the household.

When the time for voting arrived, Narasimha Rao directed all the MPs to abstain from voting; Congress’s ally AIADMK too stayed away from voting. Among the 401 members present in the house that day, 196 voted for it while 205 stayed away, thus defeating the motion.

“As for the Congress (I), it has reinforced its image of being a party that balks at taking a stand on contentious issues. There has been speculation about the party making a deal with Ramaswami to the effect that if it spared him the humiliation of impeachment, he would later resign. Until he does, though, he will be its new albatross,” said a report in India Today then.

“Five successive chief justices who have been in office since the impeachment motion against Ramaswami was admitted have continued to allow him to discharge judicial functions despite the obvious loss of public confidence in him on account of the impeachment motion. Three chief justices, including the present one, continued to assign him judicial work even after the publication of the report of the inquiry committee finding him guilty of gross misbehaviour. Obviously, the judiciary cannot be left to a self-disciplining mechanism which also failed in the Ramaswami affair,” Bhushan wrote.

Ramaswami went on to fight the 1999 general elections from Sivakasi on an AIADMK ticket but lost to Vaiko of the MDMK.

Unlike Rabi Ray initiating an inquiry based on the charges brought in by opposition MPs in spite of pressure from the ruling party, Vice President Naidu dismissed the Rajya Sabha MPs’ notice.

Reacting to it, Bhushan told The Wire, “In my view, it is totally a mala fide decision, taken at the behest of the BJP. The reasons cited for dismissal are that the charges are not true; the language of the motion is tentative in nature. How can the charges be proved true before an inquiry committee is set up? It was only a plea to set up an inquiry committee to probe whether the charges were true.”

Looking back at the Ramaswami episode, he said, “There is not much similarity except that the Congress tried its best to stall it. The Bar Council moved a petition in the SC against it. In that episode, an inquiry committee was set up and here we see even that is not allowed, which is the big difference. The debate and voting for the removal of the CJI would have come later but instituting a committee to look into the charges could have been done.”

Explainer: How a Sitting Judge Can Be Removed From Office

The constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the president, based on a motion passed by both houses of parliament.

Today, some MPs initiated proceedings for the removal of the current chief justice of India by submitting a notice to the chairman of Rajya Sabha. A judge may be removed from office through a motion adopted by parliament on grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour or incapacity’. While the constitution does not use the word ‘impeachment’, it is colloquially used to refer to the proceedings under Article 124 (for the removal of a Supreme Court judge) and Article 218 (for the removal of a high court judge).

The constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the president, based on a motion passed by both houses of parliament. The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. The Act sets out the following steps for removal from office:

  • Under the Act, an impeachment motion may originate in either house of parliament. To initiate proceedings: (i) at least 100 members of Lok Sabha may give a signed notice to the speaker, or (ii) at least 50 members of Rajya Sabha may give a signed notice to the chairman.  The speaker or chairman may consult individuals and examine relevant material related to the notice.  Based on this, he or she may decide to either admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
  • If the motion is admitted, the speaker or chairman (who receives it) will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the complaint. It will comprise: (i) a Supreme Court judge; (ii) chief justice of a high court; and (iii) a distinguished jurist. The committee will frame charges based on which the investigation will be conducted. A copy of the charges will be forwarded to the judge who can present a written defence.
  • After concluding its investigation, the committee will submit its report to the speaker or chairman, who will then lay the report before the relevant house of parliament. If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated.
  • Once the motion is adopted in both houses, it is sent to the president, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.

This article was originally published by PRS India.

Opposition Move to Impeach Chief Justice, Jaitley Calls it ‘Revenge Petition’

The notice comes a day after an SC bench, headed by CJI Misra, dismissed petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B.H. Loya.

New Delhi: Capping two weeks of indecision on their part, opposition parties led by the Congress today met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu to hand over a notice for impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to PTI, over 60 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties have signed on to the notice for impeachment of the CJI.

The move comes one day after the Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Misra rejected calls for an independent inquiry into the death of judge B.H. Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

Hitting back, Union finance minister Arun Jaitley has described the move as a ‘revenge petition’ and the use of impeachment “as a political tool”.

The MPs belong to the Congress, the Nationalist Congress Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Communist Party of India, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party.

The leaders of these parties earlier met in parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment.

After the meeting, the Congress’s Ghulam Nabi Azad, who is leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, confirmed that a notice for impeachment against CJI was indeed being moved.

Congress leaders Ghulam Nabi Azad, Kapil Sibal, CPI’s D Raja and KTS Tulsi during a press conference after opposition parties submitted a notice to the vice president Venkaiah Naidu to initiate impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. (Credit: PTI)

Among those who attended the meeting in parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI’s D. Raja and the NCP’s Vandana Chavan.

PTI reported said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment move against the CJI, are no longer part of it.

Jaitley’s retort

In a written statement, Jaitley said the impeachment of a judge of the Supreme Court was only envisaged in case of his “incapacity” or on “proven misconduct” and the “Congress Party and its friends have started using impeachment as a political tool.”

He said the constitution gave each MP “the judicial power of impeachment” as part of “inter-institutional accountability” and that MPs were expected to “independently review the facts and the evidence.” MPs were not expected to decide matters on party lines or on the basis of a whip.

“Trivialising the use of that power is a dangerous event.  It is not difficult to collect 50 signatures of Rajya Sabha or 100 signatures of Lok Sabha members even on frivolous issues.  To use the power as intimidatory tactics when you neither have a case of “proven misconduct” or the numbers on your side, is a serious threat to judicial independence.”

File photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi with BJP president Amit Shah and Union finance minister Arun Jaitley at BJP headquarters in New Delhi. (Credit: PTI)

Jaitley said the the motion to impeach Justice Misra “is a revenge petition after the falsehood of the Congress Party has been established in the Justice Loya death case.  It is an attempt to intimidate a judge and send a message to other judges, that if you don’t agree with us, 50 MPs are enough for a revenge action. ”

Impeachment process 

The impeachment process. Credit: PRS Legislative Research

An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha should be 100.

Once the notice for impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion.

In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it.

If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country’s history that an impeachment motion would be moved against the chief justice of India.

Article 124(4) of the constitution specifies the procedure for impeachment of a judge:

“A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”

As matters stand, it is unlikely that the parties backing the move to impeach the CJI would be able to muster a two-thirds majority in the Rajya Sabha. In the Lok Sabha, of course, their numbers are totally lacking.

However, the opposition is hoping that invocation of the process, which, if initiated by the vice president, would take several months would render Justice Mishra hors de combat for the 15-odd weeks of his tenure that still remain. Once he retires, the motion would become infructuous.

(With inputs from PTI)