SMT. SAROJINI RAMASWAMI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 108 · Decided: 27-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. SAROJINI RAMASW AMI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
AUGUST 27, 1992 
[J.S. VERMA, N.M. KASLIWAL, K. RAMASWAMY, K. 
JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Sections 3(2), 4(1), (2)(3) and 6(1)(2)(3). 
C 
Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969: Rules 6, 8, 9, 10, 11. 
Supreme Court Judge-Alleged misbehaviour, Financial improprities 
and irregularities-Enquiry Committee Report of-Submission to Speake,._ 
Judge concemed whether entitled to copy of Report before submission to 
Speake/<-fudge concemed-Whether entitled to opportunity of hearing before 
D Parliament-Report of Inquiry Committee-Finding of 'Not guilty'- Effect 
of-Finding of 'guilty'-Whether open to judicial review-Report of Enquiry 
Committee-Whether can be equated with sanction given under Section 197 
Cr.P.C.-Term of Enquiry Committee-Whether can be extended by Court. 
E 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 121, 124(4)(5). 
Supreme Court Judge-Process for removal-Order of removal passed 
by President-Judicial review of-whether excluded. 
Article 136-Tribunal-Test to determine-What is-Inquiry Committee 
constituted under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968-Whether Tribunal. 
Judicial Review-Nature and scope of 
G 
Administrative Law-Natural Justice-Violation of-Depends on facts 
of each case-Violation cannot be examined in isolation. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197. 
Report of Inquiry Committee constituted under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 
H 
1968-Whether can be equated with sanction given under Section 197 Cr.P.C. 
108 
SMT. S. RAMASWAMI v. U.0.1. 
109 
Certain allegations of financial improprieties and irregularities were A 
made against Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami in his capacity as the Chief 
Justice of High Court of Punjab & Haryana prior to bis appointment as 
a Judge of the Supreme Court of India by 108 members of the Ninth Lok 
Sabha by notice of motion for presenting an ail.dress to the President for 
his removal from office. The Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha admitted the 
motion and constituted a Committee consisting of a sitting Jndge of this B 
Court, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and a retired Judge of 
this Court as a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3(2) of the Judges 
(Inquiry) Act, 1968. However, on dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha, the 
Union Government abstained from acting in aid of the decision of the 
Speaker since it was of the view that the notice of motion as well as the C 
decision of the Speaker to admit the motion and constitnte an Inquiry 
Committee under the provisions of the Act bad lapsed with the dissolntion 
of the Lok Sabha. 
. 
. 
A body called the "Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability" repre- D 
sented by a Senior Advocate of this Court as its Convener and the Supreme 
Conrt Bar Association filed Writ Petitions in this Court under Article 32 
of the Constitution, praying inter alia for a direction to the Union of India 
to take immediate steps to enable the lnqniry Committee to discharge its 
functions nnder the Act. By its decision, in Sub-Committee on judicial 
Accountability v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 4 S.C.C. 699, the majority E 
held (i) that a motion under Section 3(2) of the Act does not lapse upon 
the dissolntion of the House; (ii) that the process for removal of a Judge 
of the Snpreme Court comprises of two stages. The first stage is of 
investigation and proof in accordance with the Jndges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 
enacted under Article 124(5) of the Constitution by the Committee con-
F 
stituted by the Speaker acting as a statutory authority under the Act and 
the second stage commences after allegations of misbehaviour are found 
proved. In the second stage when motion is moved, bar under Article 121 
o" discussion in Parliament in respect of the conduct of the Jndge is lifted 
and the process envisaged under Article 124(4) is attracted. The first stage 
is snbject to judicial review, bnt the second stage is not subject to judicial G 
review, ltthe process involved being parliamentary process. 
Subsequent to the decisions of the Constitution Bench, the Commit-
tee constituted by the Speaker under the Act proceeded to inquire into the 
allegations made against the Judge. On May 10, 1992, the learned Judge H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
I. 
A addressed a letter to the Presiding Officer of lhe Committee requesting 
B 
him to supply a copy of its report before it wa~ forwarded to the Speaker 
and also. requested him to withhold th

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