1992 (8) TMI 292 - SC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses writ petitions for lack of party, upholds Judges (Inquiry) Act constitutionality. Limits third-party role.

Krishna Swami Versus Union of India and another With Raj Kanwar v. Union of India and Another

The court dismissed both writ petitions due to the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party, deeming them non-maintainable. It upheld the ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of the notice of motion and actions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.2. Alleged procedural illegalities by the Inquiry Committee.3. Maintainability of the writ petitions without impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami.4. Reconsideration of the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India.5. Role and participation of third parties in the Inquiry Committee proceedings.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of the notice of motion and actions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:The petitioner Raj Kanwar argued that the notice of motion by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha, its admission by the then Speaker, and the constitution of the Inquiry Committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, were unconstitutional and violated Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The court found that the Speaker's decision to admit the motion and constitute the Inquiry Committee was within the statutory framework and did not require further preliminary investigation before admitting the motion.2. Alleged procedural illegalities by the Inquiry Committee:The petitioner M. Krishna Swami alleged that procedural illegalities in the Inquiry Committee's proceedings rendered the inquiry invalid. The court held that the Inquiry Committee's procedure, including framing charges and conducting the inquiry, was consistent with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the principles of natural justice. The Committee's actions, such as framing definite charges and providing the judge with an opportunity to defend, were found to be within legal bounds.3. Maintainability of the writ petitions without impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami:The court concluded that both writ petitions must be dismissed on the preliminary ground of non-maintainability due to the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party. The court emphasized that the reliefs sought were for the benefit of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, and he should have been impleaded as a party for the petitions to be maintainable.4. Reconsideration of the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India:The petitioners sought reconsideration of the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability. The court found no compelling reasons for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of maintaining legal certainty and continuity. The court reiterated that the earlier decision was binding and should not be reopened unless there were compelling reasons for public good.5. Role and participation of third parties in the Inquiry Committee proceedings:The court addressed the participation of third parties, such as George Fernandez, Jaswant Singh, and the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, in the Inquiry Committee proceedings. It held that the participation of third parties was not authorized by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and their involvement should be limited. The court directed that any adverse evidence against Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami placed by these third parties should be excluded from the record.Separate Judgment by K. Ramaswamy, J.:Justice K. Ramaswamy, in his separate opinion, concurred with the need to exclude adverse evidence placed by third parties and emphasized the importance of judicial independence and integrity. He elaborated on the constitutional framework and the procedural safeguards provided under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to ensure a fair inquiry into the alleged misbehavior or incapacity of a judge.Conclusion:Both writ petitions were dismissed on the preliminary ground of non-maintainability due to the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party. The court upheld the constitutionality of the notice of motion and actions under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and found no procedural illegalities by the Inquiry Committee. The court also declined to reconsider the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and limited the role of third parties in the Inquiry Committee proceedings.