2011 (7) TMI 1358 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Orders Replacement of Jurist in Inquiry to Address Bias Concerns, Urges Speedy Continuation of Proceedings.

Justice P.D. Dinakaran Versus Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and others

Justice P.D. Dinakaran Versus Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and others - 2011 AIR 3711, 2011 (10) SCR 1064, 2011 (8) SCC 380, 2011 (7) JT 425, 2011 (6) ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Inquiry Committee.2. Allegations of bias against respondent No.3.3. Waiver of the right to object to the inclusion of respondent No.3.4. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Inquiry Committee:The petitioner challenged the inclusion of respondent No.3, a Senior Advocate, in the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The petitioner argued that respondent No.3 had previously expressed views against his elevation to the Supreme Court, which should disqualify him from being part of the Committee. The Committee, however, found that objections had been raised against respondent No.3 by both sides, which confirmed his impartiality. The Supreme Court noted that the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had appointed respondent No.3 due to his expertise and long experience as an eminent advocate.2. Allegations of bias against respondent No.3:The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 was biased due to his active participation in a seminar where he opposed the petitioner's elevation to the Supreme Court and drafted a resolution to that effect. The Court examined the rule against bias, emphasizing that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. The Court concluded that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was reasonable and not fanciful, considering respondent No.3's prior involvement in opposing the petitioner's elevation.3. Waiver of the right to object to the inclusion of respondent No.3:The petitioner did not raise any objection to respondent No.3's inclusion in the Committee until after receiving the notice dated 16.3.2011, despite being aware of the Committee's composition since January 2010. The Court held that the petitioner's knowledgeful silence for almost ten months indicated a waiver of his right to object. The Court referred to the principle that a person can waive the advantage of a law made solely for their benefit and protection, as long as it does not infringe public right or policy.4. Compliance with the principles of natural justice:The Court discussed the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias, which requires that a judge should be impartial and free from bias. The Court emphasized that the test for bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The Court found that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was reasonable, given respondent No.3's prior actions. However, the Court also noted that the petitioner's delay in raising the objection indicated a calculated move to delay the inquiry proceedings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition but requested the Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of respondent No.3, ensuring that the reconstituted Committee could proceed with the charges already framed against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the proceedings should not be delayed unnecessarily, and the inquiry should be completed expeditiously.