New Delhi (ABC Live): Impeachment Motion Against Dipak Misra : Vice President of India and Chairman of Rajya Sabha Mr. Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
As per his order of rejection the Members of Parliament who had signed the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra were not sure about their own case.
As per order the copy of which is with ABC Live and our Legal expert Advocate Dinesh Singh Rawat that the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India moved by the congress led opposition parties has failed to prove misbehaviour which is an essential ingredient for setting committee for further proceedings as per article 124(4) of Constitution of India which says,
“(4) 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.”
Further on question of power of Chairman of Rajya Sabha to reject the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Mr. Rawat said that Mr. Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra under the subsection 1(b) of section 3 of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, which says,
“(b) in the case of a notice given in the Council of States, by not less, then fifty members of that Council, then, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may, after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.”
Further Advocate Rawat clarified that Chairman of Rajya Sabha under Subsection (2) of section 3 of the governing act he shall constitute a committee to investigate into grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity only in case, he decided to admit the impeachment motion. The The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, on this aspect says,
“If the motion referred to in sub-section (1) is admitted, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall keep the motion pending and constitute as soon as may be for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a Judge is prayed for, a Committee consisting of three members of whom – (a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court; (b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts; and (c) one shall be a person who is in the opinion of the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman, a distinguished jurist :
Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in subsection (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman : Provided further that where notices of a motion as aforesaid are given in the Houses of Parliament on different dates, the notice which is given later shall stand rejected.”
As mentioned and above Mr. Venkaiah Naidu as Chairman of Rajya Sabha under Subsection (2) of section 3 of the governing act is fully competent to reject the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, if he deemed it case for rejection as he did in this case by citing the following reasons in a well reasoned order on 23/04/2018:
First Mr. Venkaiah Naidu citied Judgment of Supreme Court of India in case M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India to justify his decision that before arriving the his decision to reject the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra he has consulted legal luminaries and subject experts.
Further the Mr. Venkaiah Naidu order quoted the Supreme Court of India judgment on proved act in In Re Mehar Singh Saini (2010) 13 SCC 586,AIR SCW 5701 there he validated that how allegations made in the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra does not falls under fall under proved category as per above mentioned judgment.
Also in response to allegation regarding corruption in Prasad Education Trust Chairman Rajya Sabha in his order said that the impeachment motion moved itself says , “Chief Justice of India , he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation.” Thus it is also not comes under the category of proved misbehaviour or incapacity as under 124(4) of Constitution of India.
On allegation in the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra about allocation of cases to specific benches, Mr. Naidu took aid of Supreme Court of India Judgment in Kamini Jaiswal vs Union Of India and opined that as master of roster he has full competency to allot cases to benches and CJI is independent in running the Supreme Court of India independently by referring Supreme Court of India judgment in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and another Vs Union of India delivered by Bench consisting of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
Lastly Chairman Rajya Sabha in his order quoted importance of fair and independent working of Indian Justice Delivery system to support his contention he citied judgments of Supreme Court of India Rajendra Sail vs Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association & others.
As mentioned above on the basis of above mentioned settled proposition of law Vice President of India and Chairman of Rajya Sabha Mr. Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
