How and why Justice Shri Narayan Shukla of the Allahabad high court – against whom former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Mishra had recommended impeachment proceedings in January 2018 – was allowed to complete his term and retire on July 17, 2020, may always remain a mystery.
Later in 2019, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had for the first time given permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to lodge an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act for his alleged involvement in a medical college scam.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) recently dismissed a petition filed with the president’s secretariat that sought information on eight points pertaining to the letter or recommendation received by the Rashtrapati Bhawan from the CJI with regard to the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice Shukla, despite the appellant not having been provided all the details.
In his order, chief information commissioner Y.K. Sinha said Justice Shukla “retired on July 17, 2020, without the Union government having taken any action for his impeachment.” With the appellant, Paras Nath Singh, not appearing before the commission in the latest hearing, he held: “It appears that the quest for the requisite information has become infructuous per se. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as such.”
The query pertained to Justice Shukla against whom a committee, comprising Justice Indira Banerjee, then chief justice of the Madras high court; Justice S.K. Agnihotri, then chief justice of Sikkim high court; and Justice P.K. Jaiswal, judge of the Madhya Pradesh high court, had on January 20 submitted a report concluding that “the aberrations complained of are serious enough to call for initiation of proceedings for his removal (as a judge)”.
Thereafter, later in the same month, then CJI Dipak Misra had recommended Justice Shukla’s impeachment. Misra set the impeachment process in motion by writing a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Also read: Rights Group Points Out Flaws in Process of Appointing CIC Chief, Members
The backstory
Justice Shukla, who had joined the Allahabad high court in 2005, found himself in the midst of the impeachment proceedings as his orders in the cases of blacklisted private medical colleges raised eyebrows.
Justice S.N. Shukla. Photo: Allahabad high court
Justice Shukla headed a division bench of the Allahabad high court that passed an order on August 25, 2017, in favour of a banned medical college of the Lucknow-based Prasad Education Trust. In an interim order, this bench restrained the Medical Council of India from de-listing the Prasad Education Trust’s medical college.
In this case, the CBI also filed an FIR on the allegation that a criminal conspiracy was hatched by officials of the Trust along with several persons, including I.M. Quddusi, retired judge of the Orissa high court, to lift the ban on the college from admitting students for a couple of years.
The accused judge headed another division bench that on September 1, 2017, allowed relief to Lucknow-based G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust in defiance of a restraining order of the Supreme Court on August 28, 2017, to stop admissions for the academic session 2017-18.
Thereafter, CJI Misra had in November 2017 held that the division bench, led by Justice Shukla abandoned “the concept of judicial propriety” and went on to “proceed on a path where it was not required to.”
Judiciary’s corruption and PMO’s negligence
Following Misra’s recommendation, the Narendra Modi government did not show any urgency to deal with the case which highlighted corruption in high judicial offices and showed the intent of the senior judiciary to act against the black sheep.
Writing for The Wire, senior advocate of Supreme Court, M.R. Shamshad, referred to how in Justice Shukla’s impeachment case, two consecutive CJIs – Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi – “had to remind the PMO that the allegations were serious and warranted initiation of proceedings for his removal.”
Noting that “the process required for the initiation of impeachment proceedings stood complete as long ago as January 2018”, Shamshad had pointed out that “unfortunately, the judge retired on July 17, 2020, without the Union government having taken any action for his impeachment”.
Also read: ‘No Knowledge’ of How Rs 70-Crore Contract Was Given to UP Organisation, Says Centre
What did the RTI plea say
The RTI application before president’s secretariat was filed on February 3, 2018, just days after CJI Misra recommended the impeachment process. In his petition, Singh asked for “certified copy of the letter/recommendation along with annexure thereto received from the Chief Justice of India, (ii) procedure adopted by the secretariat in the matter and (iii) certified copy of note made or order passed by the president of India on the said letter/recommendation.”
The CIC recorded in his order that the appellant filed a second appeal before the commission on the grounds that the central public information officer (CPIO) has provided incomplete information by simply stating that the letter was under consideration. The CIC order added that the first appellate authority (FAA) has also wrongly denied information on the plea of it being exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act – which pertains to information being available in a fiduciary relationship.
Subsequently, Sinha noted in his order that during a hearing in November 2019, it was submitted by the applicant that submitted the appeal was related to the applicability of RTI Act on the office of the CJI, and the matter was pending adjudication before the constitution bench of the Supreme Court.
As such, he said the adjudication of the matter would have a bearing on the appeal and urged a hearing after the apex court had decided the case. The matter was then adjourned till December 11, 2019.
President’s secretariat’s refusal to reveal details
Singh submitted that as per the constitution bench decision, the information sought by him was disclosable under the RTI Act, 2005. He also stated that he received information to points 1 and 3 but in response to point 2, the FAA denied it citing the ‘fiduciary relationship’ clause.
Sinha observed in his order that “the appellant contended that the copy of the recommendation along with the annexures thereto received by the president from the CJI cannot be held by the respondent in fiduciary capacity as the said communication arises from the resolution relating to the report of the committee on the in-house inquiry conducted in the matter of Justice Narayan Shukla.”
With Singh seeking “complete information”, the president’s secretariat asked for more time.
During the next ‘virtual’ hearing on January 21, this year, the president’s secretariat reiterated the the issue of “breach of confidentiality and fiduciary relationship” and claimed exemption from providing the information on the procedure adopted by it in the impeachment matter.
In view of its stand, the CIC “observed that the office of CJI, along with the Supreme Court, comes under the ambit of RTI Act, 2005, in terms of the order dated November 13, 2013 passed by the apex court in central public information officer, Supreme Court of India versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal” and so “the issue about applicability of RTI Act on the office of the CJI is now decided.”
However, on “whether the information sought is barred from disclosure under any specific provision enumerated under Section 8 of the RTI Act”, the CIC refrained from making any observation saying following Justice Shukla’s retirement “the quest for the requisite information has become infructuous per se.”
