Congress MPs withdraw plea against V-P's rejection of CJI's impeachment

A petition challenging Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu's rejection of an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was withdrawn on Tuesday after a five-judge Bench set up to hear the matter, refused to divulge details of the order constituting the Bench.

The petition was filed by Congress Rajya Sabha members Partap Singh Bajwa and Amee Yajnik and contended that the rejection of the motion is “ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution” and hence should be quashed.

The petition claimed that Naidu “in utmost haste and in the most illegal and arbitrary manner and against the settled law on the subject, rejected the notice of motion”. It also sought setting up a committee to investigate into the allegations made against the CJI.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, pleaded the five-judge Bench to provide a copy of the order constituting the Bench. But the Bench insisted him to argue the case on merits and refused to give details. After over half-an-hour of arguments and counter arguments, the petition was withdrawn.

Later interacting with the media, Sibal informed that he had mentioned the matter on Monday before the court of Justice J Chelameswar, who had asked him to come on (Tuesday). But on Monday evening the case was listed for hearing by a five judge Bench comprising Justices AK Sikri, SA Bobde, NV Ramanna, Arun Mishra and AK Goel.

“Yesterday (Monday) evening we got to know about the formation of the five-judge Bench. On what basis this order (to constitute the Bench) was made, who made it, we did not know. Because there is no judicial order,” said Sibal.

He said that reference to a five judge Bench is made only when the matter involves deciding a substantial question of law involving the interpretation of the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court Rules do not permit the Chief Justice to pass an order in this behalf on the administrative side. Never before has a petition been referred to a five-judge Bench immediately on filing and by an administrative order,” said Sibal informing about the court proceedings.

“We needed to be informed about who constituted this Bench, who passed this order. If the CJI did, then give us a copy of the order. It is our constitutional right to know who passed the order. Unless we get a copy of the order, how can we challenge it,” asked Sibal.

He said on the refusal of the court to clarify about the constitution of the Bench, the petition was withdrawn.

He also asserted that there was no politics involved in the matter.

“We don’t have any personal grievances against any judge, we want to protect the court’s independence. But at the same time we want the judicial process to be transparent. We want to ensure the process is not polluted and they is pure.

“We did not raise any political matter, we are being accused of being against the judiciary, but the matter we raised is not connected with politics, it is purely a legal matter,” added Sibal.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who played a key role in the impeachment motion, in a series of tweets claimed the CJI “illegally” constituted the five-judge Bench. He also asserted that the order could be challenged on the ground that CJI had a conflict of interest.