LexMS. LILY THOMAS, ADVOCATE versus SPEAKER, LOK SABHA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·, • • MS. LILY THOMAS, ADVOCATE A v. SPEAKER, LOK SABHA AND OTHERS AUGUST 24, 1993 IR.M. SAHA! AND N.P. SINGH, .I.I.] B Constitution of India !95!}--A1tic/e 124(4)-vflhether abstaining from 1 ·oting by a n1en1bcr of Parlianzent, on 1notion for ini11caclunent against a s·upren1e Court sitting judge, could be dee111cd to be a suppotting vote-- IM1ethcr the 1ight to vote includes the 1ight to rc111ain neutral-Whether e.J.:ercise C of right to vote on n1otion for in1peach111ent i.r judicial in character and lherc- /(>re refusal of 1nen1bc1:v or their abstaining fron1 voting being abdication of ncrcise of judicial power could be set 1ighl judicially, assuming that the ahstainers, fronz voting had voted in favour of the nzotion. The petitioner had tiled nTit petition under Article 32 of the Con- stitution of India, seeking declaration that the motion of imf)eachment, moved in Lok Sabha, against a sitting judge of this Court, seeking to remove him from otlice, may be deemed to have been carried under Article 124(4) of' the Constitution, by support of majority of' the members, assum- D ing that the members, who abstained from voting had supported the E n1otion. The petitioner urged that jurisdiction of Parlia1nent while exercis- ing right to vote on impeachment motion is judicial in character and therefore, refusal of niembers or their abstaining from voting, was abdica- tion of exercise of judicial power, which could be set right judicially, assuming that such members voted in favour of the motion. The petitioner F contended that Parliament is constitutionally obliged either to support or oppose the motion and that silence or acquiescence amounted to accep- tance or approval. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court G HELD : l. That proceedings for impeachment partake of judicial character, because it is removal after inquiry and investigation. The statutory process starts when the speaker exercises duty under the Judges Enquiry Act and comes to an end when the Con1rnittee appointed by the speaker submits its report. The debate on the motion thereafter in the H 791 792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993[ SUPP. 1 S.C.K A Parliament, the discussion and voting is more political in nature. [794-A-B] Sub Committee on Judicial Accountabili0' v. Union of India anti Others, [1991] 4 SCC 699, relied on. B 2. Voting is formal expression of will or opinion. The right to volt' means right to exercise in favour or against the motion or resolution and implies the right to remain neutral as well. Conceptually it is not aligning ' with either view. [794-C] r 3. Article 124( 4) of the Constitution does not exclude neutrality or C abstaining from voting. Halsbury's Laws of England also indicate that the right to vote is optional. When a person entitled to vote participates in discussion but abstains from voting, it is neither neutrality nor expression of view one way or the other. Yet it is legitimate and valid. If non exercise of right by a member, though present, amounts to support, it shall D frustrate the entire removal process based on exercise of the right. ' [794-E, Fl 4. The procedure of voting in Lok Sabha also recognises that a member may abstain from voting. Abstaining or refusal to express opinion by casting of vote cannot be construed as deemed support of the motion. E The language of Article 124(4), the purpose of its enactment, the objective behind it, do not warrant such construction. [795-D] F G M.N. Kaul and S.L. Shakdher; Practice and Procedure of Parliament, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 543of1993. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Petitioner in person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHA!, J. The petitioner, a practising advocate of this Court, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking decla- ration that the Motion of Impeachment against Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting judge of this Court moved in the Lok Sabha seeking to re~ovc H him form the office of Judge, should be deemed to have been carried by THOMAS v. SPEAKER. LOKSABHA[SAHAI,J.] 793 construing the expression, support of the majority in Article 124( 4) in such A a manner that any member who abstained from voting should be deemed to have supported the Motion. It was also claimed that this Court may recommend for repeal of Article 124( 4) of the Constitution as it has been rendered unworkable and n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.