C. RAVICHANDRAN IYER versus JUSTICE A.M. BHATTACHARJEE

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 319 · Decided: 05-09-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

C. RA VICHANDRAN IYER 
A 
v. 
JUSTICE A.M. BHATTACHARJEE 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ] 
B 
Constitution of India-A1ticles 124(4) and 121-Impeachment-Judi-
cial misconduct-Removal of a Judge on proved misbehaviour or in-
capacity-Word 'misbehaviour'-Scope and meaning-Bad conduct or bad 
behaviour of a Judg&-Role of Bar Council or Bar Associations-Plimacy of C 
Chief Justice of India-Self regulation by judiciary. 
Rule of Law-Independence of Judicia1y-Judicial individualism-
Duty of Judge to maintain high standard of conduct-Freedom of expression 
and duty of advocate-Contempt of cowt. 
The petitioner, a practising advocate, initiated a public interest 
litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to issue an ap-
propriate writ, order or direction restraining the Bar Council of 
Maharashtra and Goa, Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates' As-
sociation of Western India, respondents 2 to 4 respectively, cQercing the 
1st. Respondent, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, to resign from the 
office as Judge. He sought an investigation by the Central Bureaue of 
Investigation etc. into the allegation made against the 1st. respondent, and 
if the same were found true, to direct the Speaker, Lok Sabha, to initiate 
action for his removal under Article 124(4) and (5) read with Article 218 
of the Constitution of India and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This Court 
issued notice to respondents 2 to 4 and rejected the prayer for interim 
direction to the President of India and the Union of India not to giv~ effect 
to the resignation by the 1st respondent. 
D 
E 
F 
The petitioner alleged that the news published in various national G 
newspapers proved that the respondents 2 to 4 had pressurised the 1st 
respondent to resign from the office as Judge for his alleged misbehaviour; 
that the acts and action of the respondents were unknown to law, i.e., 
removal by forced resignation, which was not only unconstitutional but 
also deleterious to the independence of the Judiciary; that the accusations 
against the Ist respondent without proper investigation by an independent H 
319 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
agency seriously damaged the image of judiciary and efficacy of judicial 
adjudication and thereby undermined the credibility of the judicial system 
itself; that the Judges are not to be judged by the Bar and allowing 
adoption of such demands by collective pressure rudely shakes the con-
fidence and competence of Judges of integrity, ability, moral vigour and 
B 
ethical firmness which destroyed the very foundation of democratic polity. 
The petitioner requested the Court to adopt such procedure which would 
safeguard the independence of the judiciary and protect the Judges from 
pressure through unconstitutional methods to demit the office. 
The respondents 2 to 4 stated that they had in their custody the 
C 
documents to show that the 1st respondent had negotiated with a Publish-
ing Company of London and the acceptance by the 1st respondent for 
publication and sale abroad of a book authored by him for two years at a 
royalty US $ 80,000 and an inclusive negotiation for US $ 75,000 for 
overseas publishing rights of this another book; that from ab
0out late 1994, 
D there was considerable agitation amongst the members of the bar that 
certain persons were bringing influence over the 1st respondent and could 
influence the course of his judgment; that the 1st respondent himself had 
discussed with the advocate General impressing upon the latter that the 
former had decided to proceed on leave and would resign in April 1995; 
E 
F 
that a press interview published in Times of India said to have been given 
by the 1st respondent stating that he had not seriously checked the antece-
dents of the Publisher and it was possible that he had made a mistake in 
accepting the offer. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa passed a 
resolution seeking, resignation forthwith' of the 1st respondent, who as-
sured the Bar that he would res(gn within a week. However, he had not 
kept his promise. Consequently, after full discussion, for and against, an 
over whemling majority of 185 out of 207 permanent members resolved in 
the meeting demanding the resignation of the 1st respondent. It was 
contended that the Supreme Court and the High Court are two inde-
pendent constitutional institutions and a High Court is not subordinate 
to the Supreme Court; that the constitutional proces

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.