The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Venkaiah Naidu today rejected the notice of motion moved to remove Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra from office..In a 10-page order passed to this effect, Chairman Naidu ultimately concludes,.“I am of the firm opinion that the Notice of motion does not deserve to be admitted.”.The Chairman’s role in the Impeachment process.The Chairman notes that at the stage of admission, he is called upon to apply the following test to make his decision, i.e..“..if every statement stated in the petition is believed to be true, would it still amount to a case of ‘proved misbehavior’ within the scope of Article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India.”.To guide his decision, the Chairman has relied on the case of M Krishna Swami v Union of India. As per this case, factors to be taken into account to make this decision include the seriousness of the imputations, nature, and quality of the record and the indelible chilling effect on the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary..This case also held that the authority in question need not weigh the pros and cons to find a prima facie case to make this decision. Further that,.“He acts, neither as a quasi-judicial nor an administrative authority but, purely as a constitutional functionary and with a high sense of responsibility and on due consideration of ‘the record’ and arrives at a decision to admit or refuse to admit the motion …”.Curiously, it appears that the Chairman has proceeded to weigh pros and cons to some extent, to determine whether there is a prima facie case for the charges leveled in the motion..However, to be fair, the Krishna Swami case also notes,.“It is also equally salutary that before admitting the motion to remove the judge, there shall exist factual foundation.”. In this case, the Chairman has found that the charges are largely speculative in nature. At one point he has also weighed the charges against a standard of beyond reasonable doubt..“The same certainly does not constitute proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, which is required to make out a case of ‘proved misbehavior’ under Article 124 (4)…“.The lingering question is regarding the extent to which the Chairman’s functions extend qua admission and the point at which an inquiry committee’s jurisdiction begins when it comes to impeachment proceedings..The order makes no reference as to how the beyond reasonable proof standard can be applied at the stage of admitting the notice of a motion to impeach..No “Proved Misbehavior” .The Chairman found that the charges made in the impeachment motion are largely unsubstantiated, thereby indicating that there is no proved misbehavior to remove the Chief Justice..In this regard, the Chairman has referred to certain phrases in the motion, suggesting speculation in the charges leveled against Chief Justice Misra..These include phrases such as the Chief Justice “may have been involved in a conspiracy”, that he was “likely to fall within the scope of an investigation” and that he “appears to have anti-dated an administrative order.“.The Chairman has observed that,.“….the phrases used … 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 misbehavior’ under Article 124 (4).”.In this context, the import of the term proved misbehavior was emphasised with reference to the case of In Re Mehar Singh Saini. .“’Proved misbehavior’ is an expression clearly distinguishable from ‘misconduct’ as is apparent from the language of Article 124 (4). The intent, gravity, and onus are of much higher degree. The prefix ‘proved’ places an obligation of actually proving the misbehavior before the Parliamentary Procedure for removal of a Judge can come into play.”.Unsubstantiated allegations undermine the Judiciary’s Independence.The objective of imposing stringent laws for removal of judges in India was another reason that played into the rejection of the motion. It was noted,.“All these arrangements are aimed at being difficult and onerous to keep the Judges independent of any external pressure.”.On the other hand, it was found that the allegations in the motion have a serious tendency of undermining the independence of judiciary. As a result, the scandalous nature of the allegations, now established by the Chairman as being speculative and unsubstantiated, prompted him to hold,.“Considering the totality of the 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.”.Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster.Specific reference has been made to the status of the Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster. To defend the position of the Chief Justice in this capacity, it has been noted that,.“A Bench of five honourable judges has also reaffirmed the settled position that the CJI is the Master of the roster.”.Further, it has been noted that the position was reaffirmed in the recent case of Kamini Jaiswal v Union of India as well..Internal Matter of the Supreme Court.Having regard to the above-stated positions, the Chairman also emphasises that,.“Clearly this is an internal matter to be resolved by the Supreme Court itself….… Either the allegations are within judicial domain and concern the internal judicial process or there are unsubstantiated surmises and conjecture which hardly merit or necessitate further investigation.”.Consultees indicated that Removal was not warranted.To arrive at his conclusion, the Chairman consulted various legal luminaries, constitutional experts, statutory functionaries and the like..Further, the Chairman refers to reliance made on comments by former Attorney Generals, constitutional experts and editors of prominent newspapers on the topic. It is remarked that their comments indicate an unequivocal and nearly unanimous position that the present notice of motion is not a fit case for removal of judges..Cutting short needless speculation.Chairman Naidu noted that in moving the present impeachment, the parliamentary rule in paragraph 2.2 of the Handbook for Members of Rajya Sabha was flouted. This provision prohibits publicity of the Notice till it has been admitted by the Chairman and circulated to the members..On the contrary, it has been noted, immediately after the Notice was submitted to the Chairman, the Members addressed a press conference, wherein they also shared statements concerning unsubstantiated charges against the CJI. As observed by Chairman Naidu,.“This act of Members of discussing the conduct of the CJI in the press is against propriety and parliamentary decorum as it denigrates the institution of the CJI.”.Therefore, the expeditious decision was explained as having been provoked to end needless speculation which followed the publicity..“I am also aware that there has been a spate of statements in the press that seem to vitiate the atmosphere. I thought I should, therefore, expedite my decisions and end needless speculation.”.On these broad grounds, the Chairman has delivered his verdict thus..“Accordingly, I refuse to admit the notice of motion.”.Next Stop: Supreme Court.In the meanwhile, Congress leader and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has confirmed in a press conference held today that the members will be moving the Supreme Court against the rejection of the impeachment notice..Read Order
The Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, Venkaiah Naidu today rejected the notice of motion moved to remove Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra from office..In a 10-page order passed to this effect, Chairman Naidu ultimately concludes,.“I am of the firm opinion that the Notice of motion does not deserve to be admitted.”.The Chairman’s role in the Impeachment process.The Chairman notes that at the stage of admission, he is called upon to apply the following test to make his decision, i.e..“..if every statement stated in the petition is believed to be true, would it still amount to a case of ‘proved misbehavior’ within the scope of Article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India.”.To guide his decision, the Chairman has relied on the case of M Krishna Swami v Union of India. As per this case, factors to be taken into account to make this decision include the seriousness of the imputations, nature, and quality of the record and the indelible chilling effect on the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary..This case also held that the authority in question need not weigh the pros and cons to find a prima facie case to make this decision. Further that,.“He acts, neither as a quasi-judicial nor an administrative authority but, purely as a constitutional functionary and with a high sense of responsibility and on due consideration of ‘the record’ and arrives at a decision to admit or refuse to admit the motion …”.Curiously, it appears that the Chairman has proceeded to weigh pros and cons to some extent, to determine whether there is a prima facie case for the charges leveled in the motion..However, to be fair, the Krishna Swami case also notes,.“It is also equally salutary that before admitting the motion to remove the judge, there shall exist factual foundation.”. In this case, the Chairman has found that the charges are largely speculative in nature. At one point he has also weighed the charges against a standard of beyond reasonable doubt..“The same certainly does not constitute proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, which is required to make out a case of ‘proved misbehavior’ under Article 124 (4)…“.The lingering question is regarding the extent to which the Chairman’s functions extend qua admission and the point at which an inquiry committee’s jurisdiction begins when it comes to impeachment proceedings..The order makes no reference as to how the beyond reasonable proof standard can be applied at the stage of admitting the notice of a motion to impeach..No “Proved Misbehavior” .The Chairman found that the charges made in the impeachment motion are largely unsubstantiated, thereby indicating that there is no proved misbehavior to remove the Chief Justice..In this regard, the Chairman has referred to certain phrases in the motion, suggesting speculation in the charges leveled against Chief Justice Misra..These include phrases such as the Chief Justice “may have been involved in a conspiracy”, that he was “likely to fall within the scope of an investigation” and that he “appears to have anti-dated an administrative order.“.The Chairman has observed that,.“….the phrases used … 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 misbehavior’ under Article 124 (4).”.In this context, the import of the term proved misbehavior was emphasised with reference to the case of In Re Mehar Singh Saini. .“’Proved misbehavior’ is an expression clearly distinguishable from ‘misconduct’ as is apparent from the language of Article 124 (4). The intent, gravity, and onus are of much higher degree. The prefix ‘proved’ places an obligation of actually proving the misbehavior before the Parliamentary Procedure for removal of a Judge can come into play.”.Unsubstantiated allegations undermine the Judiciary’s Independence.The objective of imposing stringent laws for removal of judges in India was another reason that played into the rejection of the motion. It was noted,.“All these arrangements are aimed at being difficult and onerous to keep the Judges independent of any external pressure.”.On the other hand, it was found that the allegations in the motion have a serious tendency of undermining the independence of judiciary. As a result, the scandalous nature of the allegations, now established by the Chairman as being speculative and unsubstantiated, prompted him to hold,.“Considering the totality of the 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.”.Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster.Specific reference has been made to the status of the Chief Justice as the Master of the Roster. To defend the position of the Chief Justice in this capacity, it has been noted that,.“A Bench of five honourable judges has also reaffirmed the settled position that the CJI is the Master of the roster.”.Further, it has been noted that the position was reaffirmed in the recent case of Kamini Jaiswal v Union of India as well..Internal Matter of the Supreme Court.Having regard to the above-stated positions, the Chairman also emphasises that,.“Clearly this is an internal matter to be resolved by the Supreme Court itself….… Either the allegations are within judicial domain and concern the internal judicial process or there are unsubstantiated surmises and conjecture which hardly merit or necessitate further investigation.”.Consultees indicated that Removal was not warranted.To arrive at his conclusion, the Chairman consulted various legal luminaries, constitutional experts, statutory functionaries and the like..Further, the Chairman refers to reliance made on comments by former Attorney Generals, constitutional experts and editors of prominent newspapers on the topic. It is remarked that their comments indicate an unequivocal and nearly unanimous position that the present notice of motion is not a fit case for removal of judges..Cutting short needless speculation.Chairman Naidu noted that in moving the present impeachment, the parliamentary rule in paragraph 2.2 of the Handbook for Members of Rajya Sabha was flouted. This provision prohibits publicity of the Notice till it has been admitted by the Chairman and circulated to the members..On the contrary, it has been noted, immediately after the Notice was submitted to the Chairman, the Members addressed a press conference, wherein they also shared statements concerning unsubstantiated charges against the CJI. As observed by Chairman Naidu,.“This act of Members of discussing the conduct of the CJI in the press is against propriety and parliamentary decorum as it denigrates the institution of the CJI.”.Therefore, the expeditious decision was explained as having been provoked to end needless speculation which followed the publicity..“I am also aware that there has been a spate of statements in the press that seem to vitiate the atmosphere. I thought I should, therefore, expedite my decisions and end needless speculation.”.On these broad grounds, the Chairman has delivered his verdict thus..“Accordingly, I refuse to admit the notice of motion.”.Next Stop: Supreme Court.In the meanwhile, Congress leader and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has confirmed in a press conference held today that the members will be moving the Supreme Court against the rejection of the impeachment notice..Read Order
