1991 (10) TMI 323 - SC - Indian Laws

Motion for Judge Removal Survives Lok Sabha Dissolution: Justiciability and Constitutionality Upheld

Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - AIR 1992 SC 320, JT 1991 (6) SC 184, 1991 (2) SCALE 844, (1991) 4 ... Issues Involved:1. Lapse of Motion upon Dissolution of Lok Sabha2. Justiciability of the Removal Process3. Constitutionality of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 19684. Requirement of Natural Justice5. Judicial Remedy for Judicial Misconduct6. Mala Fides of the Speaker7. Locus Standi of Petitioners8. Effectiveness of Court's WritSummary:1. Lapse of Motion upon Dissolution of Lok Sabha:The Court examined whether a motion for the removal of a Judge lapses upon the dissolution of the House of Parliament. It was held that the motion does not lapse and remains pending. The Court stated, 'The effect of these provisions is that the motion shall be kept pending till the committee submits its report and if the committee finds the Judge guilty, the motion shall be taken up for consideration.'2. Justiciability of the Removal Process:The Court discussed whether the process for the removal of a Judge is justiciable. It concluded that the constitutional process for removal of a Judge up to the point of admission of the motion and constitution of the Committee are not strictly proceedings in the Houses of Parliament and are thus subject to judicial review. The Court stated, 'The constitutional process for removal of a Judge up to the point of admission of the motion, constitution of the Committee and the recording of findings by the Committee are not, strictly, proceedings in the Houses of Parliament.'3. Constitutionality of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:The Court held that the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is constitutional and intra vires. It stated, 'The provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 are not unconstitutional as abridging the powers and privileges of the House.'4. Requirement of Natural Justice:It was argued that the Speaker should have given the Judge an opportunity to be heard before admitting the motion. The Court held that at the stage when the Speaker admits the motion, the Judge is not entitled to such notice as a matter of right, stating, 'The scheme of the statute and rules made thereunder by necessary implication, exclude such a right.'5. Judicial Remedy for Judicial Misconduct:The Court rejected the argument that the judiciary itself has the jurisdiction to restrain a Judge from exercising judicial functions pending inquiry. It emphasized that the constitutional scheme does not permit such an interim direction, stating, 'The relief of a direction to restrain the Judge from discharging judicial functions cannot be granted.'6. Mala Fides of the Speaker:The Court found no merit in the allegations of mala fides against the Speaker, stating, 'A case of mala fides cannot be made out merely on the ground of political affiliation of the Speaker either.'7. Locus Standi of Petitioners:The Court upheld the locus standi of the petitioners, including the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, stating, 'The present matter is of such nature and the constitutional issues of such nature and importance that it cannot be said that members of the Bar, and particularly the Supreme Court Bar Association have no locus standi in the matter.'8. Effectiveness of Court's Writ:The Court declared the correct constitutional position without issuing specific writs, emphasizing that the decision of the House on whether the motion has lapsed is binding, stating, 'Having regard to the nature of the subject matter and the purpose it is ultimately intended to serve all that is necessary is to declare the legal and constitutional position and leave the different organs of the State to consider matters falling within the orbit of their respective jurisdiction and powers.'Separate Judgment by L.M. Sharma, J.:Justice L.M. Sharma dissented, holding that the writ petitions should be dismissed and that the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter. He emphasized that the constitutional scheme vests the power of removal of a Judge exclusively in the Parliament and not in the judiciary. He stated, 'The courts including the Supreme Court do not have any jurisdiction to pass any order in relation to a proceeding for removal of a Judge of the superior courts.'Conclusion:The Court disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 491 and 541 of 1991 by declaring the appropriate legal positions and dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 542 and 560 of 1991. The Transfer Petition No. 278 of 1991 was allowed, and the transferred writ petition was also dismissed.