JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN versus HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 1064 · Decided: 05-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 1064 
JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN 
v. 
HON'BLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITIEE & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2011) 
JULY 5, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND CHANDRAMAULI 
KR. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 217 rlw Article 124 -
C Constitution of Inquiry Committee against High Court Judge 
- Inclusion of respondent no.3-advocate in the Committee -
Challenge to, on ground of bias - Fifty members of the Rajya 
Sabha submitted notice of motion for removal of the writ 
petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the 
D Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 
124(4) of the Constitution -
Chairman of Rajya Sabha 
constituted Inquiry Committee comprising of a Supreme Court 
Judge, Chief Justice of High Court and respondent no. 3-
advocate - Constitution of the Committee notified in the 
E Official Gazette dated 15-1-2010 - Committee issued notice 
requiring the Petitioner to appear to answer the charges -
Petitioner raised objection against inclusion of respondent 
No.3- He contended that respondent no.3 was biased against 
him on grounds that in a seminar organized by the Bar 
F Association of India on 28-11-2009, respondent No.3 had 
made a speech opposing his elevation to Supreme Court and 
had also drafted resolution for the said purpose - Held: The 
petitioner raised the plea of bias only after receiving notice 
dated 16-3-2011 though he could have done so immediately 
G after publication of notification dated 15-1-2010 - Significantly 
respondent No.3 had taken part in the said seminar as Vice-
President of the Bar Association - After the seminar, 
respondent No.3 is not shown to have done anything which 
may give slightest impression to any person of reasonable 
H 
1064 
JUSTICE P. D. DINAKARAN v. HON'BLE JUDGES 1065 
. INQUIRY COMMITIEE & ORS. 
prudence ·that he was ill-disposed against the petitioner -
A 
Rather, as per the petitioner's own statement, he had met 
respondent No.3 at the latter's residence on 6-12-2009 and 
was convinced that the latter had nothing against him - The 
facts of the case lead to an irresistible inference that the 
petitioner had waived his right to object to the appointment of B 
respondent No.3 as member of the Committee - The belated 
raising of objection against inclusion of respondent No.3 in 
the Committee u/s.3(2) appears to be a calculated move on 
the petitioner's part - Petitioner is an intelligent person and 
knows that in terms of Rule 9(2)(c) of the Judges (Inquiry) c 
Rules, 1969, the Presiding Officer of the Committee is 
required to forward the report to the Chairman within a period 
of three months from the date the charges framed u/s.3(3) of 
the Act were served upon him - Therefore, he wants to adopt 
every possible tactic to delay the submission of report which 
0 
may in all probability compel the Committee to make a 
request to the Chairman to extend the time in terms of proviso 
to Rule 9(2)(c) - However, the issue of bias of respondent 
No.3 is not to be seen from the view point of this Court or for 
that matter the Committee - It has to be seen from the angle 
of a reasonable, objective and informed person - It is his 
E 
apprehension which is of paramount importance -From the 
facts of the case it can be said that petitioner's apprehension 
of likelihood of bias against respondent No.3 is reasonable 
and not fanciful, though, in fact, he may not be biased -
Keeping in view the finding of this Court on the issue of bias, 
F 
the Chairman is requested to nominate another distinguished 
jurist in place of respondent No.3 - The proceedings initiated 
against the petitioner have progressed only to the stage of 
framing of charges and the Committee is yet to record its 
findings on the charges and submit report -
Therefore, 
G 
nomination of another jurist will not hamper the proceedings 
of the Committee and the re-constituted Committee shall be 
entitled to proceed on the charges already framed against the 
petitioner - Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - ss. 3 to 6 - Judges 
(Inquiry) Rules, 1969 - Rule 9(2)(c). 
H 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Administration of Justice - Judicial proceedings - Rule 
against bias or interest -
Held: The Judge should be 
impartial and neutral and must be free from bias - If the Judge 
is subject to bias in favour of or against either party to the 
dispute or is in a position that a bias can be assumed, he is 
B disqualified to act as a Judge, and the proceed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.