Opposition serves notice for Impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

On January 11, four top-level Supreme Court (SC) judges, had in a press conference, made complaints against Dipak Misra, on the grounds of administrative and judicial irregularity in the apex court. Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurien Joseph had said Misra was assigning important cases in an arbitrary manner to junior judges, ignoring these four senior judges. ‘India’s democracy is at stake’, the judges alleged and questioned the sacred position of the Chief Justice of India. (http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/chief-justice-of-india-impeachment-motion-process-of-removing-chief-justice-dipak-misra-118032800747_1.html)

Charges against the Chief Justice

  • Justice Loya’s death: The CJI refused SC judges’ petition, which demanded an independent probe against Loya’s death.
  • Prasad Education Trust case: The case relates to acceptance of bribery by medical institutions for getting clearances to set up medical colleges. It has been alleged that the CJI had submitted a false affidavit allowing the acquisition of lands to the institutions for building medical colleges. Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences was one among 46 institutions to be barred by the Union government from admitting students for medical courses for two academic years starting from 2017. This followed an MCI report on their substandard infrastructural facilities and failure to meet the required criteria.However, since August 2017, the college has been granted many reliefs by both the Supreme Court and Allahabad high court.
  • 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 an 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 an age-old practice. On November 9, 2017, when a writ petition was mentioned before Justice J. Chelameswar at 10.30 a.m. since the Chief Justice was sitting in a Constitution Bench, the same 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 November 6 brought to the attention of Justice Chelameswar on November 9 as the matter was taken up was antedated. The charge of antedating is by all accounts a very serious charge. (http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/apr/20/cji-impeachment-motion-four-acts-of-misbehaviour-levelled-against-chief-justice-dipak-misra-%E2%80%8B-1804146.html)
  • The third Charge relates 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 fourth 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. (http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2018/apr/20/cji-impeachment-motion-four-acts-of-misbehaviour-levelled-against-chief-justice-dipak-misra-%E2%80%8B-1804146.html)

How can the CJI be removed?

Article 124(4) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court, including the CJI, who can be impeached on grounds of “misbehaviour or incapacity”.

Step 1: A removal motion signed by 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50 members of Rajya Sabha has to be submitted to the Speaker of the Lower House or Chairperson (i.e. Vice President) of the Upper House. This can be in either of the Houses of Parliament.

Step 2: The Speaker/Chairperson can either accept or reject the motion.

Step 3: If the motion is admitted, then the Speaker/ Chairperson forms a three-member committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of a high court and a distinguished jurist to investigate the charges levelled against the CJI.

Step 4: If the committee supports the motion, it can be taken up for discussion. It must be passed by a special two-thirds majority of MPs in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

Step 5: After it is passed in both Houses, it is presented to the President, who can pass a Presidential Order for removal of the CJI.

Current scenario

Possible outcomes

  • Under the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968, Vice President has the discretion to accept or reject the motion. Sec 3(1)(b) of the Act says- the Chairman may consult any person he thinks fit and after considering such materials if any, he may either admit or refuse to admit the motion.
  • The test is of reasonableness and not merely getting 50 signature. It is likely the present motion will not find any merit and the request may be declined. The entire process looks politically motivated.
  • If Vice President rejects the motion the decision is to be challenged at the Supreme Court which is currently a divided house. The CJI cannot hear the matter neither can the top four judges who protested against the working of CJI office.
  • If the motion is accepted by the Vice President, a 3 member committee is to be formed to probe into the charges. Amongst the 3 members, one has to be either the CJI or any other SC judge. The second member has to be from High Court, and Chief Justice or other senior judges from the High Court.  The third is an eminent jurist appointed by the Chairman.  The committee will give reasonable opportunity to CJI to defend himself.

If the committee finds the CJI guilty, the motion will be put to vote.  If 2/3rd majority votes for removal are received, an impeachment is recommended to the President. If the committee finds otherwise the charges are dropped.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -