Impeachment: Jurists frown

NEW DELHI: As the Congress-led Opposition awaits Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu’s decision on its unprecedented motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, jurists disapproved of the move, saying the allegations against him did not amount to “proved misbehaviour” — a constitutional requirement for removal of a judge.

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, April 21

As the Congress-led Opposition awaits Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu’s decision on its unprecedented motion to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, jurists disapproved of the move, saying the allegations against him did not amount to “proved misbehaviour” — a constitutional requirement for removal of a judge.

“This is only a political ploy to make the judiciary fearful. If you don’t decide cases in our favour, we will defame you by moving impeachment motion,” former Supreme Court Judge KT Thomas told The Tribune.

“They know that they don’t have two-third majority… not even one third… to pass the impeachment motion. The purpose is only to give a message to the judiciary that if you don’t decide as per our wish, we will trouble you,” Justice Thomas said.

Terming it “an unpleasant, unfortunate and unprecedented development”, former Chief Justice of India RM Lodha said the threshold of 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs signing the motion has been crossed.

He said now it was for the Rajya Sabha Chairman to decide whether to admit the motion and set up a committee to investigate the allegations as required under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.

Another former CJI KG Balakrishnan said, “This way, no CJI can function… no official right from the village panchayat level to that of a secretary or a chief secretary can function. He has the authority to decide the roster and CJI has been doing it for decades.

“Case allocation and grievance of some judges regarding it can’t be a ground to impeach a CJI. The only thing is that he (CJI Misra) has failed to take along many senior judges… It’s a leadership issue which should have been handled in a better manner. But that can’t amount to proved misbehaviour,” Justice Balakrishnan said.

Justice Lodha said, “The allegations against CJI Misra don’t amount to proved misbehaviour under Article 124(4) or the Judges Inquiry Act. But, in the ultimate analysis, impeachment is a political process. There are no yardsticks or parameters to judge what amounts to ‘proved misbehaviour’… It’s all political.”

Asked if the CJI can continue to exercise his authority as ‘Master of Roster’ even after the impeachment motion was admitted and it was rejected and the rejection is challenged before the top court, Justice Lodha said, “These are unprecedented situations. Normally, once the motion is admitted, the judge in question is not allocated any judicial work. But here it’s a case of the CJI… it’s an unprecedented situation. Ideally, the next seniormost judge should be deciding the roster.”