LexSUB-COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. •·"'! SUB-COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 8, 1991 [B.C. RAY, L.M. SHARMA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, J.S. B VERMA AND S.C. AGRAWAL,JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950/Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Article 124(5)-Enquiry into a/legations of miscorzduct against a sitting Judge of Supreme Court .pertaining to conduct as Chief Justice of a High Court-Action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in admitting a notice by Members of Parliament and constituting an Inquiry Committee- Validity and implementation of-Application for interlocutory relillf- Court directing expeditious hearing of main case. A Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner-Committee, a body of Advocates, praying for directions to be issued to the Union Government and the Chief Justice of India, in connection with the enquiry into alle- gations of misconduct made against a sitting Judge of the Snpreme Court, pertaining to his conduct as Chief Justice of a High Court, raised certain questions as to the validity and implementation of the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in admitting a notice of motion moved by the Members of Parliament under Article 124(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Judges (Inquiry) Am, 1968, Some intervention applications, opposing the Writ Petition, and some other Writ Petitions more or less endorsing the Government's c D E - stand raising the question as to whether the motion in question survived --~ the dissolution of the Lok Sabha or not, were also filed. F Praying for interim direction, which was identical with the prayer In main Writ Petition, it was urged on behalf of the Petitioner- Committee that having regard to the dire need of maintaining public confidence in the institution and its reputation as apex Court, it was necessary that the concerned Judge should abstain from discharging G judicial functions during the pendency of the enquiry, and a direction should be issued accordingly, or pending disposal of the Writ Petition, the Union Government shonld be directed to afford all necessary facilities to the Committee for smooth and efficient functioning. Directing expeditious hearing of the Writ Petition and connected H matters, this Court, 741 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the nature and importance of the issues involved, it is appropriate that the main matter along with the connected writ petitions is heard as expeditiously as possible. Accor- dingly, this matter should be listed on July 9, 1991 and hearing of the matters proceeded with day-to-day until conclusion. [7440] B 1.2 1n the circumstances, it is not appropriate to embark upon an examination of the prayer for interlocutory relief. However, 'the Court's disinclination to issue any interlocutory orders at this stage should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the issues either way and as an interdiction of the functioning of the Com- mittee, if the Committee otherwise considers appropriate to proceed C with the matter. [744E-F] D ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 1of1991. IN Writ Petition No. 491 of 1991. WITH Writ Petition Nos. 541 & 560 of 1991 etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). E G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, Shanti Bhushan, Ashok Desai, Hardev Singh, Ms. Indira Jaisingh, P.S. Poti, Rajinder Sachhar, M.K. Ramamurty, R.K. Garg, S.K. Dholakia, Santosh Hegde, V.N. Ganpule, Tapas Ray, N.B. Shetye, P.P. Rao, Kapil .... Sibal, D.S. Tewatia, Hari Swamp, Jayant Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Madhoo Moolchandani, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, A.K. F Srivastava, E.M.S. Anam, N.D. Garg, A.M. Khanwilkar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appearing Parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered: This writ petition is by a body of advocates styled "Sub-Com- G mittee on Judicial Accountability" and raises certain questions as to the validity and implementation of the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sab\la admitting a notice of motion moved by 108 Members of Parliament under Article 124(5) read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and constituting an Inquiry Committee consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court, Cliief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to H investigate into the allegations of misconduct made against a sitting SUB-COMMITTEE v. U.0.1. 743 J Udge of the Supreme Court pertaining to his conduct as the erstwhile Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.