Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC320; JT1991(6)SC184; 1991(2)SCALE844; (1991)4SCC699; [1991]Supp2SCR1
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Articles 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the 'The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968' even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P.D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1407; JT1992(5)SC92; 1992(1)SCALE484; (1992)4SCC605; [1992]Supp1SCR53
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana. Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992-Mrs. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2219; JT1992(5)SC1; 1992(2)SCALE257; (1992)4SCC506; [1992]Supp1SCR108
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with the law declared in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountably v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1992SC320 -is the question for decision in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the concerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is 'guilty' of misbehavior only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with Section 4(2) of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by Section 4(3) of the Act, but not thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a copy of the report should be furnished to the concerned Judge before it is submitted to the Speaker, to preser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (for short, `the Chairman') under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, “the Act”) rejecting the petitioner's prayer for supply of the details and documents enumerated in paragraph 4(a) to (m) of application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction of the Committee to frame certain charges. 2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. For the sake of convenient ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Although, the prayers made in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are for quashing order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, the Act ) and for grant of a declaration that the proceedings conducted by the Committee on 24.4.2011 are null and void, the tenor of the grounds on which these prayers are founded shows that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the inclusion of respondent No.3-Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India in the Committee under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act. 2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The notice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003(4)JCR36(SC)]; 2003(3)KLT198(SC); 2003(4)SCALE643; (2003)5SCC494
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. A Senior Advocate practising in this Court has filed this petition purportingto be one under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest primarilyfor the publication of the inquiry report made by a Committee consisting of twoChief Justices and a Judge of different High Courts in respect of certainallegations of alleged involvement of sitting Judges of the High Court ofKarnataka in certain incidents and also for a direction to any professional andindependent investigating agency having expertise to conduct a thoroughinvestigation into the said incident and to submit a report on the same to thisCourt.2. In the Chief Justices' Conference held in December 1999, 16 clausesformed part of the Code of Conduct in addition to the declaration of assets bythe Judges and In-House procedure was suggested in the event of any complaintagainst any Judge. However, sanction for these guidelines in absent. In ourconstitutional scheme it is not possible to vest the Chief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1598; JT1991(2)SC493; 1991(1)SCALE902; (1991)3SCC65; [1991]2SCR741; 1991(2)LC194(SC)
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. This writ petition is by a body of advocates styled 'Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability' and raises certain questions as to the validity and implementation of the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitting a notice of motion moved by 108 Members of Parliament under Article 124(5) read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and constituting an Inquiry Committee consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to investigate into the allegations of misconduct made against a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court pertaining to his conduct as the erstwhile Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The main prayers in the writ petition are that the Union Government be directed to afford facilities to the Inquiry Committee to discharge its constitutional and statutory functions; and for directions to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to abstain from allocating any judicial work to the concerned Judge during the pende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(2)SC63; 1992(2)SCALE311; (1992)2SCC341; 1992(1)LC575(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, K. Jayachandra Reddy and G.N. Ray, JJ.1. During the course of the hearing of this petition Mr. Kapil Sibal urged the following contentions for our consideration:(1) Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, mandates that the Speaker of the House of the People shall either admit or refuse to admit a motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India only 'after' considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him and failure to comply with the said sine-qua-non, viz., consideration of available material before admitting the motion, vitiates his decision for non-application of mind. In the present case since the then Speaker, respondent No. 3, is not shown to have applied his mind to the available material before admitting the motion, his decision to admit the motion and constitute the Committee comprising respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law. (2) Sub-section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC63; 1991(2)SCALE776; (1992)4SCC97
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. In the main writ petition petitioners allege an actionable inaction on the part of the Union Government in the matter of providing facilities to the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, after admitting a motion presented by 108 Members of that House for presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a Judge. Petitioners seek the issue of an appropriate writ or direction to the Government to act in aid and furtherance of the Speaker's decision and to provide requisite and necessary facilities to the Inquiry Committee to enable it discharge its statutory functions. There are also certain prayers...said to be incidental to the main relief...to the effect that during the pendency of the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee the Judge be restrained from discharging judicial functions.2. The writ petition is being argued. Several issues as to the jurisdiction of the Court to decide matters said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC68; (1977)4SCC608; [1978]2SCR1
Beg, C.J.1. 'India, that is Bharat, shall be union of States'. The very first mandate of the first article of our Constitution to which we owe allegiance thus prohibits, by necessary implication, according to the plaintiff in the original suit now before us under Article 121 of the Constitution of India, any constitutionally unjustifiable trespass by the Union Government upon the domain of the powers of the States. The State of Karnataka, has, therefore, sued for a declaration that a notification dated 23-5-1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Central Notification') constituting a Commission of Inquiry in purported exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), is illegal and ultra-vires. This declaration is sought on one of two alternative grounds : firstly, that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, does not 'authorise the Central Government to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in regard to matters falling excl...
Tag this Judgment!