Read Naidu’s scathing rejection of impeachment motion : Allegations not admissible, Parliamentary customs disregarded

Vice President Venkaiah Naidu today rejected the impeachment motion against CJI Deepak Mishra tabled by the 64 MPs of seven opposition parties. The VP has stated legal, moral and constitutional reasons as the ground for the rejection of the motion.

The order of rejection which runs 10 pages, lists out the background of the charges and the Vice Presidents base for rejection. At the beginning of the order, the VP acknowledges the relevant sections of the constitution and the relevant laws (The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968) that lays rules for the grounds on which an impeachment motion can be initiated against a sitting judge. He acknowledges that since 64 MPs have signed it, the motion meets the requirement of a minimum of 50 MPs signing the order. He has also added that the same Act also provides for the chairman of the council, after consulting, to either reject or accept the motion.

The VP mentions that he took guidance from a previous Supreme Court order in the case of N Krishna Swami vs Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 1407).

- Advertisement - - Article resumes -

courtesy: Livelaw

The VP mentions that since the case is against the CJI himself he has not consulted him on the matter and has consulted with legal luminaries, constitutional experts, former secretary generals of both houses of Parliament and several jurists. He adds that after going through comments and consultations of all the above, he is of the opinion that the impeachment motion is not fit to be a case for removal of a judge.

The VP added that the article 124(4) explicitly states the ground for impeachment to be ‘proved misbehaviour or incapacity’. He added that the word ‘proved’ places an obligation that the allegations of misbehaviours must be proved before the parliamentary process of removal can be initiated, which is not the case in this motion.

courtesy: Livelaw

Venkaiah Naidu goes ahead to add that the MPs who have presented the motion are unsure of their own case since the page 1 of the motion has phrases like ‘may have been involved’ and ‘he too was likely’ etc and it shows that the MPs are merely stating their suspicion or a conjecture or assumption which cannot be called ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’. He adds that conversations between the third parties, with dubious credentials, which have been extensively relied upon, cannot themselves constitute any material evidence against the Chief Justice of India.

The VP further adds that it is affirmed by a constitution bench of judges of Supreme Court ( Kamini Jaiswal vs Union of India , 14 Nov, 2017 ) that the CJI is master of roasters and that it is his prerogative alone to constitute benches of judges and there cannot be any direction to the CJI as to who will sit on a bench and who shall take up the matter.

courtesy; Livelaw

The order further mentions that in para 15 of the same Supreme Court order, it is mentioned that the CJI is well within his powers to construct administrative benches too.

Courtesy: Livelaw

Mr Naidu adds further that the five allegations mentioned by the MPs are neither admissable or tenable. He states that the allegations in the motion have a serious tendency of undermining the judiciary and hence it is neither legal nor proper to admit the notice of motion. He states that the provisions in the constitution are to nurture and strengthen the judiciary and there are safeguards to prevent interference in its independence by Legislature and Executive powers.

He adds further that the section 124(4) and the Judges Act both have laid down very stringent conditions necessary for initiation of such proceedings and they are aimed at protecting and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and keep the judges safe from external pressure.

courtesy: Livelaw

The Vice President further adds that there is virtually no verifiable concrete imputation in the motion and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to accept statements which have little empirical basis. He asserts that he has examined the relevant provisions in the constitution and also has pursued the annexures provided in the motion, consulted with experts he is certain that the motion is not admissible. He also added that the parliamentary customs and conventions have been disregarded in case of the impeachment notion.

He goes ahead to add that it is prohibited for the members to publicize any notice submitted to the Chairman till it is admitted and circulated to the said members. He condemned the MPs conducting press conferences immediately after submitting the notice and asserted that is against the propriety and decorum of the parliament and also denigrates the institution of the CJI.


Share This Post and Support:
We need your support to survive in the media industry. Please consider paying us for the content we produce:

To know more about these payments, please click here.


Most read articles recently

How Ravish Kumar and Vinod Dua misled people about ‘martyr status’ to CRPF jawans after Pulwama attack

How Ravish Kumar and Vinod Dua misled people about ‘martyr status’ to CRPF jawans

Ravish Kumar of NDTV is a man known for many lows. But this may well be his lowest point.

Pakistan quotes The Quint, Karan Thapar and Praveen Swami to brand Kulbhushan Jadhav as a ‘RAW spy’ at ICJ

Pakistan quoted several articles published in Indian to present its case during Kulbhushan Jadhav hearing at the International Court of Justice

Kavita Krishnan uses 4 year old photograph to claim PM Narendra Modi was laughing after Pulwama attack

Using a old photo, Kavita Krishna claimed the Modi was having fun at election rallies after Pulwama attack

The Hindu not only cropped the Rafale dissent note, but also had digitally manipulated it

Comparison of Hindu document with ANI document shows that Hindu had doctored the Rafale dissent note

Imran Khan’s deranged statement on Pulwama terror attack tailor-made to appeal to Indian ‘liberal’ sensibilities

In his statement on the Pulwama terror attack, Imran Khan claimed that his country had nothing to gain from attacking India. Apart from that, he threatened India with retaliation should the Indian Army decide to attack Pakistan.
Image Source: Swarajya

Ten things India must do to stop being a soft state

India is overly defensive. Despite its massive economic and military power, it does not respond to grave provocations (26/11, for example). It does not retaliate when attacked. It tolerates countless attacks on its citizens and affronts to its prestige.
Major Vibhuti Dhoundiyal was martyred with 3 other soldiers in Pulwama during an encounter

A teary adieu to Major Vibhuti Dhoundiyal: Married only last year, he made the ultimate sacrifice so we can live

Major Dhoundiyal along with three soldiers was killed in an encounter with terrorists in Pulwama district.

Meet the people whose main concern is if Modi may ‘benefit’ due to terror strike, not tears of martyrs’ families

While the Country held its breath and read gut-wrenching stories of the Jawans martyred in the Pulwama attack, the 'liberals' were more concerned about politics than the tears of the martyr's families.

Pakistan minister says ‘bells won’t toll in temples’, he forgets, India is the land of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, Federal Minister for Pakistani Railways, commented that should anyone look at Pakistan in a negative manner, then "the eyes will be ripped out, the grass will not grow, the birds will not chirp and the bells won't toll in Temples."

Man whose number was made public by Barkha Dutt for stalking, claims he is getting threatening calls, says didn’t abuse Barkha

In her tweet, Barkha demanded the Home Minister of the country, Rajnath Singh, himself intervene in the matter which is routinely dealt with by local Police.

Latest articles

Connect with us

137,523FansLike
110,477FollowersFollow
23,140SubscribersSubscribe

Don't miss these