Friday, Mar 29 2024 | Time 01:36 Hrs(IST)
image
India


Impeachment motion: Beware the ides of March, Congress to CJI

Impeachment motion: Beware the ides of March, Congress to CJI

New Delhi, Apr 20 (UNI) Opposition parties on Friday submitted to Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naiduhim notices for an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra.
The development came a day after the Supreme Court threw out five Public Interest Litigations seeking a probe into the alleged mystery regarding the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya, who was presiding over the trial of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, in which Bharatiya Janata Party chief was an accused. The bench, led by the CJI, had observed that the judicial forum should not be used to settle political scores.
The Opposition leaders, however, said the move has nothing to do with the Justice Loya issue as the signatures in support of the impeachment motion were collected during the last session of the Council of States. An appointment with the Vice-President, in this regard, was sought a week ago .
Briefing reporters here, Mr Azad said the seven opposition parties said they had sought the removal of the CJI under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India.
Mr Azad said since the Vice-President was touring the Northeastern states, 'today was the time given by his office to us.'
A total of 71 MPs of the Opposition-dominated Rajya Sabha, which included the Indian National Congress, Nationalist Congress Party Communist Party of India-Marxist, Communist Party of India, Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), signed the notice.
Litany of charges:
Listing the grievances against the CJI, former Union Minister for Law and Justice Kapil Sibal said, 'the first charge relates to the conspiracy to pay illegal gratification by persons in relation to the Prasad Education Trust case and the manner in which the case was dealt with by the Chief Justice. It is on record that the CBI has registered an FIR. There are several recorded conversations between middlemen, including a retired judge of the Orissa High Court, excerpts of transcripts of which are set out in the articles of charge. References to the Chief Justice by innuendo in these conversations are evident. The denial of permission to the CBI to register an FIR against Justice Narayan Shukla of the Allahabad High Court, when the CBI shared incriminating information with the Chief Justice was itself an act of misbehaviour. All this requires a thorough investigation.
'The second charge relates to the Chief Justice having dealt on the administrative as well as on the judicial side with a writ petition which sought an investigation into the matter of Prasad Education Trust, in which he, too, was likely to fall within the scope of investigation. The practice in the Supreme Court is that when the Chief Justice is in a Constitution Bench, and matters are to be listed, requests for listing are made before the first puisne judge. This is a time-honoured practice.
'On November 9, 2017, when a writ petition was mentioned before Justice Jasti Chelameswar at 1030 hrs since the Chief Justice was sitting in a Constitution Bench, it was directed to be listed later the same day. When the matter was taken up, a note dated November 6, 2017 was placed before the judges hearing the matter by an official of the Registry. This is the basis of the third charge alleging that the note of 6th November brought to the attention of Justice Chelameswar on 9th November as the matter was taken up was antedated. The charge of antedating is by all accounts a very serious charge.
'The fourth charge relates to the Chief Justice having acquired land when he was an Advocate by giving an affidavit which was found to be false. Further, despite the orders of the ADM cancelling the allotment in 1985, the Chief Justice surrendered the land only in 2012 after he was elevated to the Supreme Court.
'The fifth charge relates to the abuse of exercise of power by the Chief Justice in choosing to send sensitive matters to particular benches by misusing his authority as Master of the Roster with the likely intent to influence the outcome.
'As representatives of the people, we are entitled to hold the Chief Justice accountable just as we are accountable to the people. The majesty of the law is more important than the majesty of any office.
'We hope that a thorough inquiry will be held so that truth alone triumphs. Democracy can thrive only when our judiciary stands firm, independent of the executive, and discharges its constitutional functions honestly, fearlessly and with an even hand.'
Mr Sibal said, ' We wish this day had never come. In the framework of our constitutional fabric the judiciary holds a very special place. Its independence is a constitutional imperative without which democracy will flounder. It must guard and protect itself from external interference and must be above suspicion. This is why judges must uphold the highest standards of integrity. They must also be tested by the same standards. In the scheme of things within the judicial set up, the office of the Chief Justice is an exalted position. He is one among equals on the judicial side but has vast powers on the administrative side.'
Apex court concern:
The Supreme Court expressed concern over politicians making allegations against members of judiciary in media and giving statements to initiate impeachment motion against the CJI.
"We are all disturbed what is happening. It is very unfortunate," Justice A K Sikri said referring to media reports making allegations against the judiciary.
Responding to a petitioner requesting the court to restrain media from publishing such scandalous stories, the apex court said it cannot pass order without hearing case, seeks assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley alleged that impeachment was being used as a 'political tool'.
He expressed concern that over the years Public Interest Litigation crusaders had graduated into 'Institution Disruptors who pick up even false causes and pursue the falsehood with a sense of deep commitment, indulge in intimidating advocacy and justice dispensation.'
If intimidatory tactics of Institution Disruptors and impeachment motion are threats to judicial independence, the single greatest threat is the divided court itself, he said in a series of tweets.
Process:
To move an impeachment motion against the CJI, the signatures of 100 MPs are required in the Lok Sabha or 50 in the Rajya Sabha. The motion can be introduced in either of the Houses.
After the motion is introduced, it is up to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to accept it. If the motion is accepted, a three-member committee, comprising one Supreme Court judge, one judge of the high court and one eminent jurist, would be formed to investigate the charges.
If the three-member committee further decides to support the motion, the matter will be taken up for discussion in the House where it had been originally introduced.
Irrespective of which House introduces the motion, according to the Constitution, it will have to be passed by the other House as well. Only after gaining a two-thirds majority in both the Houses will the motion finally get passed to the President of India.
If the motion is passed in both the Houses, then the President will take the final call.
Congress president Rahul Gandhi tweeted that the people of India would not allow Judge Loya to be forgotten.
In Bengaluru, the Congress alleged that the BJP’s hunger for power poses a serious threat to the democracy and Narendra Modi government has systematically attacked the judiciary since it assumed office.
Talking to mediapersons, Congress MP Rajeev Gowda and AICC communications convener Priyanka Chaturvedi alleged that the Narendra Modi government has assaulted the nation’s autonomous institutions in a systematic manner.
UNI Team AR RP2025

More News
Comments on our electoral, legal processes completely unacceptable: MEA

Comments on our electoral, legal processes completely unacceptable: MEA

28 Mar 2024 | 7:34 PM

New Delhi, Mar 28 (UNI) The Ministry of External Affairs said on Thursday that recent remarks by the US State Department on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's arrest are "unwarranted," and any such external imputation on India's electoral and legal processes is "completely unacceptable".

see more..
DC extends Kejriwal's ED custody till April 1

DC extends Kejriwal's ED custody till April 1

28 Mar 2024 | 7:26 PM

New Delhi, Mar 28 (UNI) A Delhi Court on Thursday extended the Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, an accused in the alleged liquor policy scam, for four days till April 1.

see more..
Lawyers apprise CJI of pressure groups influencing judiciary and vitiating legal process

Lawyers apprise CJI of pressure groups influencing judiciary and vitiating legal process

28 Mar 2024 | 7:15 PM

New Delhi, Mar 28 (UNI) About 600 prominent lawyers on Thursday wrote to the chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud that there are attempts from various pressure groups to undermine the judiciary’s integrity.

see more..
No legal bar in Kejriwal continuing as CM:  Delhi HC

No legal bar in Kejriwal continuing as CM: Delhi HC

28 Mar 2024 | 6:41 PM

New Delhi, Mar 28 (UNI) The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking Arvind Kejriwal's removal as Delhi Chief Minister following his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged Delhi excise policy scam and said there is no legal bar in his continuation as CM.

see more..
UNICEF India, IIHMR Delhi & IIT Mumbai launch digital health course to bridge tech-knowledge gaps

UNICEF India, IIHMR Delhi & IIT Mumbai launch digital health course to bridge tech-knowledge gaps

28 Mar 2024 | 6:25 PM

New Delhi, Mar 28 (UNI) UNICEF India, the International Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) Delhi, and the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT Bombay) jointly launched a comprehensive health course.

see more..
image