KRISHNA SWAMI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 53 · Decided: 27-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

KRISHNA SWAMI AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 1992 
[J.S. VERMA, N.M. KASLIWAL, K. RAMASWAMY, K.J. REDDY 
AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.j 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 & 124(4) (5). 
A 
B 
Supreme Cowt Judge-Proceedings for removal-Public Interest Litiga-
C 
tio1t-Writs challenging the removal proceedings by Advocate and a member 
of Lok Sabha-Locus standi and maintainability of-Petitions plea of recon-
sideration of earlier judgment-Pennissibility of-Non-impleadment of judge 
concemed-Effect of 
On February 27, 1991 a notice of motion signed by 108 members of 
the 9th Lok Sabha was presented to the speaker to initiate proceedings 
against Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of Supreme 
C11!'rt, alleging commission of financial irregularities in the discharge of 
D 
his aiJministrative duties as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court. The speaker admitted the motion and constituted an Inquiry Com-
E 
mittee under section3(2) of Juilges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The 9th Lok Sabha 
was dissolved on March 13, 1991. The Sub-Committee on Judicial Account-
ability filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion and a host of writ petitions ensued, which were disposed of by a 
Constitution Bench reported in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Account-
F 
ability v. Union of India, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 741, in which this Court declared 
that the motion admitted by the Speaker of the 9th Lok Sabha is valid; his 
action under the Act is outside the Parliament, the motion did not lapse, 
and the Union of India was directed to notify constitution of the committee 
under Section 3 (2) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued 
by the Central Government. The Secretary to the Inquiry Committee G 
issued notice in Form I of the Juilges (Enquiry) Rules, 1969 on January 
14, 1992 communicating definite charges and requested Mr. Justice V. 
Ramaswami to put in his written statement of defence on or before 
February 4, 1992 and to appear either in person or through counsel on 
February 10, 1992 along with his evidence. On request, two MPs, SCJA H 
53 
( 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992j SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
and the petitioner were permitted only to assist the Advocate of the 
Committee to prove the case against the Judge and to keep secrecy of the 
facts and the procerdings. The petitioner's insistence to prove the in-
nocence of the Judge was not acceded to. 
B 
Two petitions were filed in public interest and the primary relief 
claimed in both these petitions was for reconsideration of the earlier 
Constitution Bench decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability 
and for accepting the view expressly rejected in the majority opinion 
therein. The petitioner (in W.P. 140 of 1992) filed a writ petition for 
quashing the notice o( motion admitted by the Speaker and the charges 
C framed by the committee against the Judge. The connected writ petition 
(No. 149/92) was filed by a member of the 10th Lok Sbbba and an Advocate 
known to the Judge for Jong claiming the same relief as in the other 
petition. Besides the alternative prayer In this writ petition was to quash 
the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee on the ground that there were 
D illegalities in the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee in conduct-
ing the inquiry against the Judge. This petition came up for bearing before 
a Division Bench of three learned Judges which by its order dated 27.2.92 
ordered that having regard to the importance of the questions raised, the 
matter be referred to the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Constitu-
tion Bench. Accordingly, a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges was constituted 
E to hear both the petitions. 
During the hearing of these petitions, two preliminary points viz.,(l) 
Tenability of the plea for reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Committee 
on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 4 S.C.C. 699 at 
F the instance of the petitioners; and (2) maintainability of the petitions for 
reliefs claimed for the benefit of the Judge concerned without impleadlng 
him as a party arose for consideration. 
· On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that (i) in view or the 
fact that the Division Bench's order dated 27.2.1992 refers to petitiot1er's 
G contentions, which were mainly for reconsideration of the earlier Constitu-
tion Bench decision of Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, tt1.,se 
petitions cannot be disposed of on pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.