A five-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday a plea by two Congress Rajya Sabha members against house Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu's decision to reject a notice on the impeachment motion against apex court's Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The bench comprising Justices A. K. Sikri, Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice Adarsh Kumsar Goel will hear the matter as a first item at 10.30 a.m. The plea by two Rajya Sabha members -- Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadray Yajnik -- was included in the supplementary list issued by the top court's Registry on Monday evening.
He had also told the bench that the rejection of the notice of motion seeking the removal of Chief Justice Misra raised "serious constitutional issues" and involved interpretation of constitutional provisions. The Rajya Sabha Chairman had on April 23 rejected the notice given by Rajya Sabha members of the Congress and six other opposition parties to seek the removal of Chief Justice Misra on grounds of "misbehaviour".
Naidu had said that the notice lacked merit. Here are the latest updates on Congress MPs moving the Supreme Court challenging Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu's decision to reject the impeachment motion against CJI Misra: 1) Five-Judge SC bench to hear plea against rejection The bench comprising Justices A. K.Sikri, Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice N. V. Ramana, Justice Arun Mishra, and Justice Adarsh Kumsar Goel will hear the matter as a first item at 10.30 a.m. The plea by two Rajya Sabha members -- Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadray Yajnik -- was included in the supplementary list issued by the top court's Registry on Monday evening. BJP leader and advocate Aman Sinha on Monday said there was no legal ground to challenge the decision of the Rajya Sabha chairman rejecting the impeachment notice against Chief Justice Misra. Reacting to the two Congress MPs moving the Supreme Court on Monday to challenge the rejection of the impeachment notice, Sinha said the decision was a well-reasoned and speaking order which completely dealt with each and every ground mentioned in the impeachment notice. Sinha said Naidu had come to a conclusion, after deliberation, that the notice for impeachment was completely legally unmaintainable. "Therefore, there are no legally valid ground to maintain the petition filed by two Rajya Sabha MPs in Supreme Court and is devoid of any merit," Sinha said.
Two Congress MPs on Monday moved the Supreme Court to challenge the rejection of the impeachment notice against Dipak Misra by Naidu on the ground that there was "no proved misbehaviour".Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is also one of the signatories of the impeachment notice, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar.
The bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, asked Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to mention the matter before the chief justice of India for urgent listing, citing a Constitution bench judgment on powers of 'master of roster'.
The two leaders who have moved the petition are Rajya Sabha MPs Partap Singh Bajwa, who is from Punjab, and Amee Harshadray Yajnik, who is from Gujarat.
Both Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come on Tuesday so they could take a call on the issue. ‘Master of the roster’ refers to the privilege of the Chief Justice to constitute Benches to hear cases.
Supreme Court on Monday said that it would hear in the third week of July a plea seeking to restrain members of Parliament from making public statements on the removal of a judge of the higher judiciary without there being any such notice in Parliament.A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, while saying that there was no urgency in hearing the matter now, observed that Rajya Sabha Rules also prohibits such statements by Parliamentarians without there being any such notice in the House.
4) Justice Chelameswar said there was a Constitution Bench verdict on master of roster and that the petition should be mentioned before CJI Misra. The Bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, asked Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, citing a Constitution Bench judgment on powers of master of roster. 5) Sibal responded that the impeachment notice was against the CJI, hence the senior-most judge can direct for listing of the petition. "I am aware of the procedure but it can't be mentioned anywhere else. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. I am just asking for urgent listing and not seeking any interim relief," Sibal said. 6) Sibal said that this type of a situation had not arisen before and the court should pass an order on who would deal with the matter and how it would be dealt with. When Justice Kaul asked Sibal who had drafted the petition, whether the plea had been numbered, Sibal replied that they had filed a petition in the Registry but were not willing to number it. "The procedure of this court is very simple. I have practised in this court for past 45 years. The Registrar can't take orders from the CJI in this matter. The CJI can't delegate its master of roster powers to the Registrar. All I am asking is Justice Chelameswar should consider this," Sibal said. Justice Chelameswar replied, "I am on the verge of retiring." Sibal "requested" the court to pass some orders on when the petition was to be heard and who could hear the matter. Advocate Bhushan, who appeared along with Sibal, said according to rules, the CJI was disabled to pass any order and only the senior-most judge could decide on the listing of the petition. 7) Both Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come on Tuesday so that they could take a call on the issue. 8) In their petition, they have requested the court to issue an "appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature, quashing the order dated 23.04.2018," passed by Rajya Sabha Chairman Naidu rejecting the impeachment notice against CJI Misra "as arbitrary, impermissible under Section 3(1) of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India".9) They have prayed that the SC issue "an appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature declaring Section 3(1) of the Judges Inquiry Act 1968, insofar it enables the Chairman/Speaker to exercise his discretion with regard to adjudication of the merits of the charges/allegations contained in the Notice of Motion for removal, as done in the instant impugned order dated 23.04.2018, as ultra vires to the Constitution of India, especially to Article 124(4)&(5)". 10) They have also requested the apex court to "issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or like nature declaring that the Chairman Rajya Sabha is duty-bound in law, to expeditiously refer the Charges/Allegations contained in the Notice of Motion of Removal, to the Inquiry Committee as envisaged under Judges Inquiry Act 1968, without any delay or demur, solely upon satisfaction that the said Motion is indeed signed by 50 members of the Rajya Sabha." 11) The petition has also requested that the SC issue an "appropriate writ, order or direction or like nature, directing the Chairman, Rajya Sabha to admit the Notice of Motion for presenting an Address to the Hon’ble President for removal of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Shri Dipak Misra". 12) Further, they wish that the SC issue an "appropriate writ, order or direction or like nature directing the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, to constitute a Committee in terms of Section 3(2), for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Shri Dipak Misra is prayed for". 13) The petition ends by praying in front of the SC that it "pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as it deems fit in the facts of the present case and in the interests of justice".Prayer - asks for quashing the order of VP, order an enquiry under the Judges Inquiry Act, constitute a committee for making an investigation. Read Full Prayer pic.twitter.com/JhRL4AyBfA
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 7, 2018
With agency inputs