Govt defends Naidu's decision on impeachment

Facing the Opposition heat over rejection of a move to remove the Chief Justice of India, top sources in the government said today the Rajya Sabha Chairman has the "statutory right" to reject a notice to impeach a judge.

Citing provisions in the Judges Inquiry Act, the sources pointed out that the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker can "either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same" based on consultations and material available.

Leaders of seven opposition parties had on Friday last met Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice of impeachment against the Chief Justice of India, bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members, who recently retired.

 

However, the notice was rejected this morning by Naidu.

"The Chairman has the statutory right to reject the motion and statutory obligation to consult before arriving at a decision," a top government functionary said.

He also asserted that "mere numbers" are not enough to "trigger" the motion.

Referring to Article 124 of the Constitution, the sources said the notice should have grounds of "proved misbehaviour or incapacity".

"Those who complain must be sure of the grounds for removal.. In this case, the complainants were not not sure," the functionary said.

"Sufficient grounds have to be proved to trigger an inquiry (by a three-member panel headed by a SC judge)...the evidence has to be contemporaneous," the functionary said.

He said if "some sanity" is not brought in the political system, the morale of the judiciary may be "hit".

Naidu rejected the notice after seeking opinion of top legal and constitutional experts, including former secretary generals of Lok Sabha and other legal luminaries with whom he held extensive consultations.

Naidu also took the views of top legal and constitutional experts, including former chief justices and judges, over the past two days before taking the decision.

The Rajya Sabha Chairman said the allegations emerging from the present case have a "serious tendency" of undermining the independence of judiciary which is the basic tenet of the Constitution.