Unimpeachable sra seems set for a smooth ride until he hangs up his boots
habad High Court , which mandated a three-way division of the disputed site in Ayodhya . Incidentally , none of multijudge benches headed by the CJI include any of the next four puisne judges who had gone public with their concerns about the functioning of the Supreme Court under Misra .
The Ayodhya case is significant for the BJP in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha election . Several BJP leaders have told Outlook that they believe the impeachment motion supported by seven parties — Congress , CPI ( M ), CPI , Samajwadi Party , BSP , NCP and IUML — was aimed at intimidating Misra in order to influence the Ram Janmabhoomi case .
Had Naidu admitted the motion , an inquiry committee would have had to be constituted as per the Judges Inquiry Act . The CJI would have had to recuse himself from attending court while the inquiry was in progress . Though the Rajya Sabha members had been talking about impeachment for the past few weeks and collecting signatures for the motion , there was some uncertainty due to divisions within the Congress and it did seem at one point that the Opposition had given up on the idea . “ No , we had not given up , but we ’ re just waiting for the verdict in the Judge ( B . H .) Loya case ,” counters a senior Rajya Sabha MP and one of the signatories to the petition . “ Had the CJI allowed an inquiry into the mysterious death of the judge who was presiding over the CBI court in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case , we may have reconsidered the impeachment motion . But when the court threw out the case , we had no other option left .”
Congress leader Kapil Sibal , however , claims an appointment with Naidu had been sought a week before the April 19 judgment in the Loya case . “ His office gave us time on April 20 . It was not about the Loya case ,” Sibal tells Outlook , insisting they would certainly move the Supreme Court to challenge the “ illegal order ” since it has shattered the confidence of the people . But he doesn ’ t say when they would do it , claiming it needs some prior deliberation . “ The chairman ’ s
( Naidu ’ s ) order has jeopardised the country ’ s legal system . Clearly , the government does not want a probe into the charges against the CJI ,” he says , calling the government ’ s decision unprecedented , ill-advised and hasty .
Naidu ’ s decision may have been hasty , but BJP sources claim the government had done its homework and the decision was a mere formality . Naidu had left for Hyderabad on April 21 on a three-day trip , but rushed back the next day to deal with the motion . He is believed to have spent the entire day , a Sunday , consulting legal and constitutional experts . In less than 24 hours , he rejected the motion .
Sources tell Outlook that among the people Naidu spoke to or met that day
Kapil Sibal ’ s confidence notwithstanding , the Opposition is split over appealing Venkaiah Naidu ’ s decision .
PTI
were Attorney General K . K . Venugopal , his predecessor K . Parasaran , former Sup reme Court judge B . Sudarshan Reddy , former law secretary P . K . Malhotra , former Lok Sabha secretary general Subhash Kashyap and former legislative secretary Sanjay Singh . “ For Naidu , seeking legal opinion was just a formality ,” says a senior BJP leader . “ Even before the Opposition moved the motion , the government had decided to reject it . A lot of deliberation , by the best legal minds in the government , had already gone into it .”
Kashyap tells Outlook that Naidu had indeed spoken to him . Without giving details of the advice he gave , he says Naidu did the right thing by rejecting the motion . “ There is no prima facie case against the CJI ,” says Kashyap . “ The notice for motion was based on probables and conjectures . Phrases like ‘ appears to be ’, ‘ may be involved ’ and ‘ it seems ’ were used to make the so-called charges . The persons giving notice were themselves not sure of their facts . How could the chairman accept such a flimsy motion ?”
On the Opposition ’ s contention that it is the task of the inquiry committee set up after the motion is adm itted to prove the charges , Kashyap says there needs to be a prima facie case at least for the mot ion to be accepted . “ The police files a chargesheet if there is a prima facie case . Even in a court , hearing is not automatic . If the court feels there is no prima facie case , it can throw it out . For the impeachment motion to have been admitted , the Opposition had to categorically lay out the charges . They were conscious of the fact that they didn ’ t have enough proof to hold the motion ,” he says .
Finance minister Arun Jaitley states in a blog post that the impeachment motion was poorly drafted . “ The proof required to impeach a judge for being guilty of ‘ proved misbehaviour ’ has to be ‘ beyond reasonable doubt ’. Any inquiry set up subsequent to a possible admission of a motion cannot be a fishing and roving inquiry ,” he writes , adding that it would be suicidal for the Congress if it decides to challenge Naidu ’ s order .
Many in the Congress appear to agree with Jaitley . Sibal ’ s confidence notwithstanding , there is a split in the Opposition over whether to go in for appeal . “ Many Rajya Sabha members who signed the petition think there is nothing to be gained by approaching the Supreme Court now ,” says a senior Congress leader . “ As the four senior-most judges after the CJI have made their position public , it won ’ t be fair if they hear the case against Misra . Among the rest , some are alleged to be doing the CJI ’ s bidding , thanks to the allegation of bench-fixing .”
Not everyone in the Opposition holds this view — for example , one Congress leader is quick to disagree , saying they will go ahead with the appeal after the Karnataka assembly election . As of now , however , amid all the conflicting voices , it looks certain that the CJI is still in control as the first among equals in the Supreme Court of India . O
7 May 2018 OUTLOOK 23