Congress devises strategy to keep oust-CJI move ‘alive’

NEW DELHI: Congress’s lawyer-politicians have devised a multi-pronged strategy to keep the removal motion pot on the boil with sources close to those behind the move in Rajya Sabha and the petition by two Rajya Sabha MPs saying it was just a “trailer” of things to come.

“We are not ruling out filing a fresh petition by a large number of MPs who were among the 64 who had signed the notice for removal motion presented to Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu on April 20. CPI leader D Raja is also contemplating filing a separate petition challenging the rejection order by the chairman,” a source said.

“We want that adjudication of the questions of seminal constitutional importance for today and future be determined in a fair and just manner. The petitioner MPs’ repeated requests to get a copy of the administrative order purportedly passed by the Chief Justice of India for listing of a matter that squarely affected the Chief Justice of India was stalled by the five-judge bench. It is an important issue relating to the propriety of the CJI passing such an administrative order. We will contest it. We will try take the RTI route to get a copy of the Chief Justice of India’s administrative order for listing of the petition before a five-judge bench,” another source said.

Asked whether withdrawal of the petition by the two Rajya Sabha MPs without their counsel Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan seeking liberty to file a fresh plea would technically bar filing of a similar writ petition in the Supreme Court, the sources said Congress’s lawyer-politicians were of the opinion that there was no legal impediment in other MPs filing a different petition seeking to challenge the chairman’s April 23 order.

If a similar petition questioning the rejection order is filed by a large number of MPs, that would also get listed before the five-judge bench comprising Justices A K Sikri, S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and Adarsh Goel, Supreme Court registry sources said.

Reacting to this, a Congress source said, “That is the reason why we want to challenge the propriety and administrative authority of the CJI as master of roster to entertain allocation of a petition which concerns the CJI himself to a particular bench. We also want to know whether a CJI, without there being a judicial order, can administratively direct listing of a petition before a five-judge constitution bench when the norm is to either place it for hearing before a two-judge or a three-judge bench.”