Supreme Court of India
KRISHNA SWAMI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1992 INSC 223
- Decided
- 27 August 1992
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S VERMA
Holding
The writ petitions are dismissed as they are not maintainable without the Judge being a party and there is no basis to reconsider the earlier Constitution Bench decision.
Summary
In 1991 a motion signed by 108 Lok Sabha members to remove Justice V. Ramaswami was admitted by the Speaker, leading to the constitution of an Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Two writ petitions (W.P. 140/1992 and W.P. 149/1992) were filed under Article 32 seeking to quash the motion, the committee’s charges and to reconsider the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India. The petitions also raised the issue of whether they could be maintained without impleading Justice Ramaswami as a party. The Supreme Court held that the petitions were not maintainable because they sought relief solely for the benefit of the Judge without his participation and there was no ground to revisit the earlier judgment. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed on preliminary grounds.
Issues considered
- The petitioners' locus standi and right to seek reconsideration of the Sub‑Committee on Judicial Accountability judgment.
- Whether a writ petition seeking relief for a Judge can be maintained without impleading the Judge as a party.
- The validity of the Speaker’s admission of the removal motion and the constitution of the Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
- The alleged ultra‑vires nature of the Committee’s procedure under Article 124(5) of the Constitution.
- The propriety of declaring law on the removal process in the absence of the Judge.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 121, s. 124(2), s. 124(4), s. 124(5), s. 125, s. 138, s. 139, s. 140, s. 141, s. 32
- Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968s. 3(1), s. 3(2), s. 3(3), s. 3(4), s. 3(5), s. 3(9), s. 4(1), s. 5, s. 6
- Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969
Subjects
judicial removaljudicial accountabilitylocus standipublic interest litigationArticle 124Judges (Inquiry) ActSupreme Courtprocedural fairnessconstitutional benchreview of judgment
Judgment
KRISHNA SWAMI AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
AUGUST 27, 1992
B
[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).
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
D
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
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.
Two petitions were filed in public interest and the primary relief
B 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 preliminary points without going lnto
the merits of the contentions; (ii) the declaration of law on the subject can
be made in the absence of the judge concerned as a party with ..tlich
H declaration he would be bound; and that in view of the high office held by
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. 55
the Judge It was consistent with the dignity of that office that he should A
not be a petitioner or even a party in a case filed in the Court in which be
himself is a Judge; (iii) the petitioners not being a party to the earlier
decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability the remedy of review
is not available to them.
Dismissing the petitions, this Court, B
HELD: Per Venna J. (For himself and N.M. Kasliwal, Kl. Reddy and
S.C. Agrawal !!.)
1. Ordinarily, it is the person aggrieved and directly affected who C
must seek the relief himself unless disabled from doing so for a good
reason which permits someone else to seek the relief on bis behalf. In that
situation also the claim is made in substance by the person affected even
though the form be different and It Is so stated expressly. [68-G]
Murphy v. Lush and Ors., [1986) 65 A.L.R. 651, referred to. D
2. The petitioner appears to be a busy body who has filed the petition
for no ostensible public purpose. His application to the Chief Justice of
India to make the wholly unjustified grievance that be was not orally heard
is unt.~nable apart from being misconceived. Public interest was served E
better by early conclusion of the bearing rather than its prolongation to
enable every individual, who so desired, to address the Court orally. In a
matter of this kind, it was not only unnecessary but also inappropriate to
permit the bearing being converted into a debate for participation of every
individual in the name of public interest. [70 G, 71 B·C)
F
The persistence of petitioner is not in public interest. There is no
special injury to blm alleged and, therefore, the right he claims is no better
than that available to every other advocate in tbe country. If the mere
membership of the Bar can provide the foundation for the right which
petitioner asserts to maintain a separate petition then on principle every
advocate in the country would be entitled to file a separate petition. Since G
it cannot be visualised that every Advocate as an individual can claim such
a right in public interest, it cannot be doubted that the claim made by
petitioner is clearly misconceived. It is necessary that this tendency is
curbed in public interest to avoid wastage of courts' time and abuse of its
process. [71-C, 6-H, 72A) H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A S.P.Gupta v. Union of India. (1981) Supp. S.C.C. 87, relied on.
3. The points raised in these petitions in the context of clauses (4)
and (5) of Article 124 of the Constitution and the law enacted under Article
124 (5) are bound to arise only in the context of a holder of the high office
of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and at a time when he
B faces proceedings for his removal so that the decision thereon is bound to
affect the interest of the concerned Judge. If the occasion for requiring a
judicial adjudication arises in this context at a time when a particular
Judge is facing proceedings for his removal from office as in the present
case, the reason advanced by learned counsel for not even impleading him
c as a party in the petition appears to be tenuous. Anyone facing such a
proceeding and wanting to challenge it !\as to do it himself. It is not
possible to predict the outcome of the decision on merits of the points
raised in these petitions and, therefore, the likelihood of a conclusion
adverse to the interest of the learned Judge being a possibility, an effective
D adjudication of the same in his absence is not feasible, which alone is a
sufficient reason to decline consideration of the points raised In the
petitions in these circumstances. [67 D·F]
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India· and Ors.,
[1991] 4 S.C.C. 699, referred to.
E
4. There is no reason why the Court should suo motu issue notice
to the Judge concerned when the petitioner persisted in not impleading
him even though the reliefs claimed are for the benefit of the learned Judge
alone. Also there is no cogent reason to examine the merits of the points
raised in the petitions professedly for the benefit of the Judge concerned
F when the learned Judge himself has not chosen to raise the same.
[66 F, 67-A]
5. The argument that declaration of law on the subject can be made
in the absence of the learned Judge as a party with which declaration he
would be bound; and that in view of the high office held by the learned
G Judge, it was consistent with the dignity of that office that he should not
be a petitioner or even a party in a case filed in the Court in which he
himself is a Judge, is not acceptable. [67 B-C]
6. The plea for reconsideration of an earlier judgment is not to be
H entertained merely because the petitioner chooses to reagitate the points
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. 57
concluded by the earlier decision. Interest of public good should be the A
guide and there must be compelling reasons for reconsideration of a
decision of this Court for public good. There is no good much less public
good served in reopening those questions which are concluded by a
decision of the Constitution Bench in Sub-Committee on Judicial Account-
ability particularly when the plea is not even made by the concerned Judge B
himself and the attempt to reagitate those points is related to the same
learned Judge facing the same proceedings for bis removal. [69 F -H, 70-A]
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr., [1988] 2 S.C.C. 602, distln·
gulshed.
Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. etc., [1989] 2
c
S.C.C. 754 and The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,
Bombay North, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 908, relied on.
7. The argument that the petitioners not being a party to the earlier
decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, the remedy of review D
of that decision is not avilable to them, instead of supporting their claim
for seeking reconsideration of the jndgment, actually negatives it. Ir they
are not entitled to seek review, as they were not parties in the earlier
proceeding in which the judgment was rendered and the person directly
affected remains the same learned Judge who was a party then but not
now, these petitioners cannot have the right whicb·they seek to assert when E
the context remains the same. [70 D-E]
8. When the reference to a Constitution Bench is to bear the petition
as a whole and not merely decide certain question of law without even
Issuing Rule, the order of reference made by the Division Bench could not F
bind even that Bench much less a larger Bench. [68 C-D]
9. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are dismissed on the
preliminary grounds without going Into the points raised on merits. [75-B]
Per K Ramaswamy, J. (Partly dissen~ng). G
1. Any member of the public having sufficient interest could maintain
an action for judicial redress from public inquiry arising out of the breach
of public duty or oflaw and seek enforcement ohuch public, constitutional
or legal duty. Strict rule of locus bas been relaxed and personal right
enforcement has been whittled down. In the public interest, therefore, any H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A person genuinely Interested to uphold independence of the judiciary and
the law would get sufficient Interest and acquires locus to seek to lay down
public law In that behalf. [83 A·C]
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 365, relied on.
B 1.1 The petitioner is an advocate and he is al•o a Member of the
Parliament. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is a pro bona publico. His
genuine Interest to uphold the dignity of the judiciary is not doubted. The
writ petition, therefore, should not be thrown out on the ground that the
petitioner lacks locus to litigate the lis. [82-F,83-C]
c 2. The Constitution confers In explicit language judicial review on
the Supreme Court and by operation of Articles 138, 139 and 140, enlarged
that power, to elongate and effectively adjudicate the questions doing fu:J
and eft'ectlve justice. The power of judicial review is to stamp out, excesses
In exercise of power, Injustice or miscarriage of justice. The decision of
D this Court is the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution and
the laws as law of the land under Article 141. The law laid down by this
Court operates as precedent. The law laid, thus, needs stability, continuity
and certainty. The judicial vacilatlon would undermine the respect for the
law and the utility of the very judirial process as well as its efficacy.
E Adherence to precedents, stare decisis, Is usually a wise policy for rule of
law unless there are clear, compelling and substantial reasons for its
reconsideration In the larger public interest. [83 H, 84 A·D]
Reconsideration of an earlier view Is not due to an act of judicial
fallibility but an Index of supremacy of law. So when all the relevant
F provisions of law or material aspects of the case or binding precedent is
not brought to the notice of the court and its impact on the general
administration of law, It would need reconsideration. The obvious error
committed by the court leading to miscarriage of justice would need
correction by Article 142 or Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 or
G Sectioon 151 C.P.C. etc. But by Itself it Is not a licence to unsettle the
settled law or keep the law at variance at pleasure or whim. [84 D-EJ
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. C./. T. Bombay, [1965] 2 S.C.R. 908 and
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 S.C.C. 754, referred to.
H A.R. Antulay v. N.S. Naik, [1938) 1 Suppl. S.C.R. 1, distinguished.
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. 59
2.1. The rule of law laid by this Court in Sub-Committee on Judicial A
Accountability's case Is clear, precise, certain and needs to maintain con-
sistence. It is, therefore, not desirable to reopen the said ratio. [86·CJ
3. A judgment of this Court cannot be impugned or Its correctness
assailed byway of another writ petition on any ground whatever. Therefore,
the correctness of the judgment of this Conrt in Sub-Committee on Judicial B
Accountability's case is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. [83 D-Ei
N.S. Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 745 and A.R.
Antulay v. N.S. Naik. [1988] 1 Suppl. S.C.R. 1, referred to.
3.1 It Is the decision and not the reasons In support thereof that C
would be conclusive and binds all parties. Therefore, even If there Is any
additional material that was subsequently discovered, It would be or little
avail to assail the correctness or the judgment except by way or review
before the Bench that decided Sob-Committee on Judicial Accountability's
case. [83-G] D
4. The public are vitally Interested in the cleanliness or ·the pnblic
administration of justice which is of paramonnt importance. Public jnstice
is the hall mark of public good. A person genuinely or bona fide interested
In seeking declaration of law of public Importance would always get
sufficient interest and be entitled to seek declaration on that behalf which E
binds not only the State but every person, even If affected thereby, though
not eo nominee a party respondent to the proceedings. A relief In favour
of that person in bis absence could In an appropriate case also be granted.
[86 D·El
Makhanlal Waza and Ors. v.State ofJammu &Kashmir, [1971] l S.C.R. F
749;S.P. Gupta v. Union ofIndia, [1982] 2 S.~.R.365 andB. PrabhakaraRao
and Ors. v. State ofA.P., 1985 Suppl. S.C.R. 432, referred to.
4.1. Though It would be ideal to lmplead the learned Judge as
respondent yet his absence too would stand to no Impediment to declare G
public hw which would bind him too. Jn that view, the petitioner being a
legal practitioner Is entitled to seek only declaration of law of certain
aspects. [87-B]
5. The Speaker merely performs, though as a statutory authority, a
constitutional function to admit or refuse to admit the motion to remove H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A the Judge. The Constitution entrusted to the Speaker that responsibility
with the expectation that he acts as a reasonable man, with high degree of
responsibility, considers the grounds for the removal In the motion and
the record before taking a decision to admit the motion or reiusal thereof.
Existence of definite material or evidence in support of the grounds of the
motion, before initiation of the motion for removal of the Judge is, thus,
B a condition precedent. But his decision to admit the motion to remove the
Judge of the Constitutional Court for absence of reasons stated or staring
from the record is not violative of Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitu·
lion nor offends the principles of natnral justice. (90 D-E, 88 D, 90-B]
C 6. Before admitting the motion, It may be expected and may be
prudent that the Speaker may consult persons like the Chief Justice of
India, the fountain head of jndlciary, and the Attorney General of India.
But Constitution of the Committee, wlthont consultation of the Chief
Justice of India or his nomination of a!ly of the members is not per se
D illegal. However, it is desirable and salutary that the Speaker and Chair-
man of the Rajya Sabha may set up convention in this behalf. [87 G, 91-B]
7. The contention that the sitting Judge of this Court and the Chief
Justice of a High Court will not be perfoming their normal constitutional
duties when they act as members of the Committee under the Act unless
E the President of India gives his consent and treats the function as part of
their duties by a notification, is not well founded. Giving consent is one
part. Performance of duties as members of the Committee is a different
facet. There is no constitutional obligation to obtain prior consent of the
President. But b<!fore entering upon the duties by a sitting Judge or this
F Court and the Chief Justice of a High Court as Presiding omcer and
member of the Committee respectively, a notification, to be issued in this
behalf is necessary. [91 C-E]
8. The provisions In the Act and Rules indicate that the Parliament
Intended that the investigation into the misbehaviour or incapacity of the
G Judge, shall be confined only, between the advocate apppointed under
Section 3(9) of the Act and the learned Judge or his counsel who alone are
entitled to particpate and lead evidence in proof or disproof of the charges
and be heard. By necessary implication, the Act and the Rules exclude
participation or adduction of evideuce by any other person to prove the
H alleged misbehaviour or incapacity. Therefore, no third party has a right
K. SWAMI v. U.O.l. 61
to barge or butt in the proceedings and none is permitted to participate A
in the investigation nor entitled to adduce evidence for or against the
Judge. It is the Judge and the Advocate alone to participate and prove or
disprove the charge/charges and be heard. [92 D-E, 93 C-D)
9. The contention that procedure envisaged in Section 3(3), (4)
• Section 4 are unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Article 124(4) of the B
Constitution is misconceived. The Act and the ·Rules provide built-in fair
proced1•re to prove the alleged misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge. It
is akin to adversorial and trial of a civil suit and the Committee acts as
au independent 'ludicial statutory authority". The provisions are consis·
tent with Articles 124(4), 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and they C
are not ultra vires of the Constitution. [94-E, 100-H, lOl·A)
10. The words "investigation" and "inquiry" used in Article 124(5), the
Act and the Rules are interchangeable and do not take different colours
from varied contexts but connote the same theme to prove/disprove mis· D
behaviour or incapacity charged against the Judge beyond resonable
doubt. The investigation contemplated in Article 124(4) of the Constitution
or investigation or inquiry envisaged in the Act are synonymous and
interchangeable. [99-D, 100-C)
11. The elevation of a High Court Judge to the Supreme Court is E
only an elongation of the judicial functions in the apex Court with same
judicial fervour. From this perspective, the alleged misbehaviour of the
learned Judge, if proved, would remain germane even while the learned
Judge is a Judge of this Court. [101-F)
F
12. Every act or conduct or even error of judgment or negligent acts
by higher judiciary per se does not amount to misbehaviour. Wilful abuse
of judicial office, wilful misconduct in the office, corruption, lack of in·
tegrity, or any other offence involving moral turpitude would be mis-
behaviour. Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of mense rea by
the doer. Judicial finding of guilt of grave crime is misconduct. Persistent G
failure to perform the Judicial duties of the Judge or wilful abuse of the
office do/us ma/us would be misbehaviour. Misbehaviour would extend to
conduct of the Judge in or beyond the execution of judicial office. Even
administrative actions or omissions too need accompaniment of means rea.
[104 G·H, 105-A) H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 1 58; Black's Law Distionary, 6th Edn.,
p.998; Encylopedic Law Distionary, 3rd Edn., p.720; P. Ramanathan Alyar's
'The Law Lexicon, Reprint Edn., 1987, referred to.
12.1. The society is entitled to expect higher degree of propriety and
probity in the judicial conduct from higher judiciary. However, there
B cannot be any fixed or set principles, but an unwritten code of conduct of
well established traditions are the guidelines for Judicial conduct. The
conduct that tends to undermine the public confidence in the character,
integrity and impartiality of the Judge must be eschewed. It is expected of
him to voluntarily setting forth wholesome standards of conduct reaffirm-
C Ing fitness to higher responsibilities. Even the private life of a judge must
adhere to standards of probity and propriety, acceptable to others. They
alone would receive confidence and respect from the public. [105 8-D]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 149 of 1992.
D (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 1992.
E G. Ramaswamy, Attorney General, Kapil Sibal, Shanti Bhushan,
M.K. Ramamurthi, D.S. Tawatia, Hardev Singh, Indira Jaising, Ram Jeth-
malani, F.S. Nariman, E.M.S. Anam, Prashant Bhushan, P.H. Parekh, Raju
Ramachandran, Sunil Dogra, S.C. Sharma, A.M. Khanwilkar, Ms. A. Sub-
hashini, Jitendra, Sharma, A.K. Srivastava, A Rein, Ranjit Kumar, Yashank
Adyaru for the appearing parties.
F
Petitioner-in-person in W.P. (C.) No. 140 of 1992.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
VERMA, J. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitu-
G tion were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since
they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No.
149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Jll
Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140of1992, the petitioner
Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Kamal in Haryana. Both these petitions
H are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings
K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[VERMA,J.] 63
for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme A
.Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108
members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein
and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision
in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others,
[1991] 4 SCC 699 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514of1992-Mrs. B
Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union ofIndia & Ors.,- which has been disposed of by
us earlier today by a separate judgement pronounced therein giving all
relevant facts.
Petitioner Raj Kanwar (in Writ Petition No.140of1992) alleges that the
notice of motion by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha, its admission by the C
then Speaker of Lok Sabha and constitution of the Inquiry Committee under
Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 are unconstit11tional being
violative of Article 124 (4) of the Constitution. It is also asserted in that Writ
Petiton that the judgment in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability is
violative of Article 145(3) of the Constitution and hence void ab initio. On this
basis, the relief sought in Writ Petition No. 140 ofl992 is as under: D
"(a) issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing
(1) the notice of motion for presention of an address to
the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramas-
E
wami of the Supreme Court of India;
(2) its admission by the then Speaker of Lok Sabha and
(3) the formation of the Inquiry Committee under the
Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 as being void ab-initio. F
In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami
claims sufficient interest to file the writ petition as a member of the Tenth
Lok Sabha and as an advocate of Madras known to Mr. Justice V. Ramas-
wami for long. In this petition, it is alleged that certain illegalities in the G
procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee prejudicial to Mr. Justice V.
Ramaswami have rendered the inquiry invalid. On the basis of the il-
legalities in procedure, alleged in the petition, the relief sought is for
quashing the proceedings of the Committee as invalid. This is the alterna-
tive prayer in the petition while the primary relief claimed in the petition
is subtantially the same as in the other petition to quash the notice of H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A motion admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha and the charges
framed by the Committee against Mr. Justice V. Ramasw:uni. Another
prayer made to hold that the Inquiry Committee is disqualified to conduct
the inquiry was given up at the hearing by Shri Sibal accepting the position
that the allegation of bias against the Committee could be examined only
at the instance of Mr. Justice V. Ramswami who is not even a party in
B either of these two writ petitions. In substance,, the primary relief claimed
in both these writ petitions is for reconsideration of the earlier Constitution
Bench decision .in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and for accept-
ing the view expressly rejected in the majority opinion therein. In Writ
Petition No. 149 of 1992, the alternative prayer for quashing the proceed-
C ings of the Inquiry Committee on the ground of illegality in the procedure
adopted by it for conducting the inquiry is alleged to be based on the
decision in Sub- Committee on Judicial Accountability which held that the
proceeding relating to inquiry conducted by the Committee is statutory in
nature subject to judicial review.
D Subsequently, on conclusion of the investigation by the Inquiry Com-
mittee, Smt. Sarojini Ramswami, wife of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, filed
Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992 praying for a direction to the Inquiry
Committee to supply a copy of its report to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami
before submitting it to the Speaker under Section 4(2) of the Judges
E (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to enable the learned Judge to seek judicial review of
the finding of 'guilty', if any, against him made in the report of the
Committee. We have disposed of that writ petition by a separate judgment
pronounced earlier today. We are, therefore, confining the decision of
these petitions only to the points raised herein which survive for decision.
F We had concluded the hearing of these writ petitions before the
hearing was commenced in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, but at the request
of Shri Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 149 as well as in Writ Petition No. 514, we deferred the
decision in these writ petitions till now. In Writ Petition No. 149, we have
G heard Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner, the Attorney General of India for
the Union of India and Shri F.S. Nariman for the Inquiry Committee. In
addition, we have also heard Shri Shanti Bhushan and Shri Jitendra Sharma
who represented the interveners viz. Sub-committee on Judicial Account-
ability and Supreme Court Bar Association. Raj Kanwar, petitioner in Writ
H Petition No. 140 of 1992 was directed to file the written submissions which
K.SWAMiv. U.O.I.[VERMA,J.] 65
have been considered by us. We considered it unnecessary to hear A
petitioner Raj Kanwar orally also in addition to his written submissions
since his case in the same which was urged by Shri Kapil Sibal as one of
his contentions and to some extent advanced also by the Attorney General
of India. The constraint of time because of which the hearing in these
matter was required to be concluded early impelled us to adopt this course, B
particularly on account of the fact that Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992 was
tagged on to Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 to be heard along with Writ
Petition No. 149 of 1992 which was freated as the main matter by order
dated 23.3.1992.
It may now be mentioned that Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 came C
up for hearing first before a Division Bench of three learned Judges which
by its order dated 27 .2.1992 on hearing Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner
mentioned his contentions and directed as under:
"Having regard to the importance of the questions raised
D
in the petition, we direct the Registry to place the papers
before the learned Chief Justice of India for constituting
a Constitution Bench to hear this petition."
'
These contentions were mainly for reconsideration of the earlier Constitu-
tion Bench decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Acountability. This order E
is reported in JT 1992 (2) SC 63. This is I.ow this petition came to be listed
before a Constitution Bench for being heard by us. The order in Writ
Petition No. 140 of 1992 for tagging with Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 was
made thereafter on 23.3.1992 because o( the identity of subject-matter of
the two petitions. F
When the hearing commenced before us, the question of main-
tainability of these writ petitions for the reliefs claimed herein in the
absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni and tenability of the plea of recon-
sideration of the earlier decision at the intance of these petitioners who
were not parties thereto and are not directly affected thereby arose for G
consideration. On 6.5.1992 after Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner had been heard for some time on the preliminary
question relating to maintainability of the petition, he sought time 'to
consider further whether the petitioner should move an application for
impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party'. The matters were H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l1992J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A adjourned to the next day at the request of Shri Sibal. On 7.5.1992, Shri
Sibal informed us that the petitioner does not want to implead Mr. Justice
V. Ramaswami as a party and that he had decided to pursue the writ
petition as framed in its present form. In the other writ petition (W.P. No.
140} also, Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami is not a party and the petitioner's
B stand is the same; and, therefore, the question of maintainability of these
writ petitions for the reliefs claimed herein in the absence of the Mr.
Justice V. Ramaswami as party is common to both of them. These matters
were, therefore, heard on the question of maintainability indicating that in
case these petitions are held to be maintainable for the reliefs claimed
C herein in the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party, then the
matters may be heard further on merits.
We have reached the conclusion that both these petitions must be
dismissed on this preliminary ground and, therefore, the question of hear-
ing these petitions further does not arise.
D
In view of the fact that the petitioners in both these writ petitions
have persisted in pursuing the writ petitions without impleading Mr. Justice
V. Ramaswami as a party, in spite of ample opportunity given by us for the
purpose at the commencement of the hearing and even thereafter till its
E conclusion, there is now no question of giving any further opportunity to
the petitioners for this purpose. Shri Sibal took the definite stand on
instructions of the petitioner that Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni would not he
impleaded as a party in the writ petition and that the Court itself may give
him notice if it so desires. We do not find any reason why the Court should
suo motu issue notice to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni when the petitioner
F
persisted in not impleading him even though the reliefs claimed are for the
benefits of the learned Judge alone. Even otherwise we do not consider it
appropriate to examine any of the questions raised in these petitions at the
instance of these petitioners in view of our decision in Writ Petition No.
514 of 1992, the learned Judge himself having not chosen to do so.
G
There can be no doubt and it is rightly not disputed that the decision
on merits of the points raised in these writ petitions, assuming they could
be considered and decided on merits in these circumstances, would directly
affect the interest of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni in the proceedings for his
H removal from office which he is facing. In case the decision on merits is
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [VERMA,J.] 67
adverse to the interest of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, it would be open to A
him to contend that he is not bound by the decision to which he is not a
party irrespective of the merit of that contention: Moreover, there appears
to be no cogent reason to examine the merits of the points raised in the
petitions professedly for the benefit of Mr. Jusiice V. Ramaswami when
the learned Judge himself has not chosen to raise the same.
B
It was strenuously urged by Shri Sibal, supported by the learned
Attorney General, as well as the petitioner Raj Kanwar that declaration of
law on the subject can be made in the absence of the learned judge as a
party with which declaration he would be bound; and that in view of the
high office held by the learned Judge, it was consistent with the dignity of C
that office that he should not be a petitioner or even a party in a case filed
in the Court in which he himself is a Judge. We are unable to appreciate
or accept this argument.
The points raised in these petitions in the context of clauses (4) and (5) D
of Article 124 of the Constitution and the law enacted under Article 124(5) are
bound to arise only in the context of a holder of the high office of a Judge of the
Supreme Court or a High Court and at a time when he faces proceedings for
his removal so that the decision thereon is bound to affect the interest of the
concerned Judge. If the occasion for requiring a judicial adjudication arises in
this context at a time when a particular Judge is facing proceedings for his E
removal from office as in the present case, the reason advanced by learned
counsel for not even irnpleading him as a party in the petition appears to be
tenuous. Anyone facing such a proceeding and wanting to challenge it has to
do it himself. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the decision on merits
of the points raised in these petitions and, therefore, the likelihood of a con- F
clusion adverse to the interest of the learned Judge being a possibility, an
effective adjudication of the same in his absence is not feasible which alone is a
sufficient reason to decline consideration of the points raised in the petitions
in these circumstances. We may mention that the learned Judge was a party in
the earlier proceedings-Sub-Committee on!udicia/Acountabi/ity v, Union of
India and Others, [1991)4SCC699. G
Shri Sibal submitted that the order dated 27.2.1992 by a Division
Bench directing that the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice
of India for constituting a Constitution Bench to hear this petition after
mentioning the contentions of Shri Sibal requires that we must decide those H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A contentions on merits anc!' we cannot dispose of the writ petition on this
preliminary point .without going into the merits of those contentions.
Without e.xpressly saying so, the suggestion of Shri Sibal is that we have
not option in the matter in view of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.1992 by
a Division Bench except to decide these contentions on merits. We may
here mention that the contentions of Shri Sibal mentioned in the order
B dated 27.2.1992 arc mainly for reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Com-
mittee on Judicial Acountability and amount to reagitating the very same
points which were considered and rejected by majority in the earlier
Constitution Bench decision. Apart from the question whether recon-
sideration of that decision can be sought in this manner, we have no doubt
C that the order dated 27.2.1992 made by the Division Bench could not bind
even that Bench much less a larger Bench in the. manner suggested by Shri
Sibal when the reference to a Constitution Bench is to hear the petition as
a whole and not merely decide certain questions of the law without even
issuing Rule. In our opinion, the course we have adopted was available to
D that Division Bench itself even after making the order dated 27 2.1992 if it
had heard the matter thereafter instead of referring the petition for hearing
by a Constitution Bench. This contention does not merit any further
consideration.
The two main preliminary points which arise in petitions are: (1)
E Tenability of the plea for reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Committee
on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others, [1991] 4 SCC 699
- at the instance of the petitioners; and (2) Maintainability of the petitions
for reliefs claimed for the benefit of Mr. Justice V. Rarnaswami without
impleadi1.1g him as a party.
F
We have already indicated the impropriety of considering and decid-
ing the question of grant of reliefs claimed in the petitions for the benefit
of Mr. Justice V. Rarnaswarni in his absence even as a party. Ordinarily, it
is the person aggrieved and directly affected who must seek the relief
himself unless disabled from doing so for a good reason which permits
G someone else to seek the relief on his behalf. In that situation also the claim
is made in substance by the person affected even though the form be
different and it is so stated expressly. The only reason given for the learned
Judge not doing so, by Shri Sibal, has been considered by us earlier and
not found sufficient to support his submission. We may also mention that
H in a similar situation Mr. Justice Murphy of the High Cour.t of Australia,
K. SWAMI"· U.0.l. [VERMA,J.) 69
the apex court of that country, while facing proceedings for his removal A
from office, had brought an action for injunction to restrain the proceed-
ings against him in his own name. The judgment of the High Court of
Australia in that matter is Murphy v. Lush and Others, [1986] 65 ALR 651.
That case is referred only to indicate that the grievance in a similar
situation was made by the concerned Judge of the apex court himself and
not by someone else even without impleading him. We may also add the
B
subsequently in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, the petition was filed by the
wife of the learned Judge wherein the learned Judge gave a writing to the
effect that the writ petition was in substance for and on his behalf with the
decision in which he would be bound. There is nothing on record in these
petitions to indicate a similar stand by the learned Judge. Moreover, if the c
subsequent writ petition for his benefit is filed. by his wife in this manner,
there is no reason why the learned Judge would not adopt the same method
to raise the points involved in these petitions, if he was so advised.
The plea for reconsideration of the earlier judgment in Sub-Commit- D
tee on Judicial Accountability at the instance of the present petitioners is
made placing strong reliance on A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another,
(1988] 2 SCC 602. In our opinion, the decision inAntulay is of no assistance
to the petitioner in the present case. In the first place, it is not the learned
Judge Mr. Justice V. Rarnaswarni who has asked for reconsideration of that
decision, assuming he could do so by a petition .under Article 32 of the E
Constitution instead of by a review petition, since Mr. Justice V. Rarnas-
wami was a party in that matter. On the other hand, it was Antulay himself
who had challenged by a petition under Article 32 the decision rendered
against him by this Court. In addition, the settled principles for recon-
sideration of a decision which have been once again reiterated in Union of F
India and Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. etc., [1989] 2 SCC 754-
clearly indicate that the plea for reconsideration is not to be entertained
merely because the petitioner chooses to reagitate the points concluded by
the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability. In The
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, [1965] G
2 SCR 908, it was pointed out that interest of public good should be the
guide and there must be· compelling reasons for recosideration of a
decision of this Court for public good. We do not find any good much less
public good being served in reopening those questions which are concluded
by a decision of the Constitution Bench in Sub-Committee on Judicial
Accountablity particularly when the plea is not even made by the concerned H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A Judge himself and the attempt to reagitate those points is related to the
same learned Judge faciiig the same proceedings for his removal. Antulay's
case is also distinguishable for the reason that therein the result of the
earlier decision against him challenged by Antulay in the petition under
Article 32 had the effect of conferring jurisdiction on a Court contrary to
B the specific statutory provision; and the error in the earlier judgment to
this effect was considered to be sufficient for Antulay himself to challenge
that decision by an independent writ petition instead of a review petition.
Moreover, judgment of Mishra, J. as well as that of Mukharji, J. as their
Lordships were then, give a clear indication that the decision therein was
not intended to be a precedent and was confined to the peculiar facts and
C circumstances of that case. This distinction is sufficient to hold that Antulay
does not permit these petitioners to claim reconsideration of the earlier
decision in these circumstances.
Shri Sibal contended that the petitioners not being a party to the
D earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, the remedy of
review of that decision is not available to them. In our opinion, this
argument instead of supporting their claim for seeking reconsideration of
the judgment, actually negatives it. If they are not entitled to seek review,
as they were not parties in the earlier proceeding in which the judgment
was rendered and the person directly affected remains the same learned
E Judge who was party then but not now, these petitioners cannot have the
right which they seek to assert when the context remains the same.
Moreover, we deem it inappropriate to consider these questions at their
instance in these circumstances.
F The written submissions of petitioner Raj Kanwar are in substance
no addition to the points urged by Shri Sibal and, therefore, do not require
any separate consideration. We might, however, mention that petitioner
Raj Kanwar persisted in claiming to be also heard orally in additioo, which
we refused for the reasons given. We must add that the petitiooer Raj
Kanwar appears to be a busy body who has filed the petition for M
G ostensible public purpose. He has described himself as an advocate prac
tising in the District of Karna! without indicating the reasoo for his persisl·
ence in repeating the same challenge in his individual capacity when Shiii
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate has argued at length the point he raises, cm
behalf of a Member of Parliament the Advocate of Madras claiming a
H personal relationship with the learned Judge for long and the Supreme
K.SWAMiv. U.0.1.[VERMA,J.] 71
Court Bar Association and the Sub-committee on Judicial Accountability A
have appeared as interveners before us.
We would have refrained for making these observations but for the
fact that petitioner Raj Kanwar after the conclusion of the hearing in which
he was permitted to file written submissions which we have taken into B
account, chose to adopt the extraordinary course of an application to the
Chief Justice of India to make the wholly unjustified grievance that he was
not orally heard. As an advocate he should have known that such an
application is untenable apart from being misconceived. He should have
apreciated that public interest was served better by early conclusion of the
hearing rather than its prolongaiion to enable every individual, who so C
desired, to address us orally. We are also of the opinion that in a matter
of this kind, it was not only unnecessary but also inappropriate to permit
a
the hearing being converted into debate for participation of every in-
dividual in the name of public interest. We do not think that the persistence
of Raj Kanwar is in public interest.
D
The view we are taking of the role of petitioners, Raj Kanwar, in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 1992 is in consonance with the decision in S.P.
Gupta v. Union of India, [1981) supp. SCC 87, wherein this aspect was
considered at length. In his petition as well as in written submissions all
that he said was to seek relief on merits on the points raised which are E
concluded by the earlier Constitution Bench decision without even showing
as to how he is entitled to make the Claim. Later he added that the absence
of the Judge is immaterial and the points be decided without any relief
being granted to anyone.
F
The basis of the right claimed by the petitioner, Raj Kanwar, has to
be found in some principle to amount to the right of the kind he claims.
There is no special injury to him alleged and, therefore, the right he claims
is no better than that available to every other advocate in the country. If
the mere membership of the Bar can provide the foundation for the right
which Raj Kanwar asserts to maintain a separate petition then on principle G
every advocate in the country would be entitled to file a separate petition,
and as he claims also entitled to be heard orally even though it may only
be at best repetition of the same arguments which Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior
Advocate advanced at length. Since it cannot be visualised that every
Advocate as an individual can claim such a right in public interest, it cannot H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A be doubted that the claim made by petitioner, Raj Kanwar to this effect
and his insistence on being orally heard when he had nothing additional to
contribute, as is evident from his petition and the written arguments, is
clearly misconceived. It is necessary that this tendency is curbed in public
interest to avoid wastage of courts' time and abuse of its process.
B It is beneficial in this context to reproduce. certain portions from the
decision in S.P. Gupta. The opinion of Bhagwati, J. as he then was, on this
aspect reflects the opinion of the Bench and he stated as under:"
"But we must be careful to see that the member of the
c public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is
acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit
or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The
court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians
and others ....... .
D xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Before we part with this general discussion in regard
to locus standi, there is one point we would like to em-
phasise and it is, that cases may arise where there is
undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the
E State or a public authority but such act or omission also
causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a
specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a
member of the public having sufficient interest can cer-
tainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such
F act or omission, but if the person or specific class or group
of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act
or omission, do not wish to claim any relief and accept such
act or omission willingly and without protest, the member
of the public who complains of a secondary public injury
cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining
G the action at the instance of such member of the public
would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class
or group of persons primarily injured, which they do not
want." (Paras 24-25, pages 219-220}
H xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
·.~
K.SWAMiv. U.0.1.[VERMA,J.] 73
"We have taken a board and liberal view in regard to A
locus standi and held that any public-spirited> advocate
acting bona fide and not for private gain or personal profit
or political motivation or any other oblique consideration,
may file a writ petition in the High Court challenging an
unconstitutional or illegal ·action of the Government or
any other constitutional authority prejudicially affecting
B
the administration of justice and in such writ petition he
may claim relief not for himself personally but for those
who are the direct victims of such unconstitutional or
illegal action, because granting such relief to them would
repair the injury caused to administration of justice. But c
the persons for whom the relief is suoght must be ready to
accept it; they must appear and make it known that they are
claiming such relief; it cannot be thrust upon them unless
they,,wish it.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx D
The Court does not decide issues in the abstract. It
undertakes determination of a controversy provided it is
necessary in order to give relief to a party and if no relief
can be given because none is sought, the Court cannot take E
upon itself a theoretical exercise merely for the purpose of
deciding academic issues, howsoever impoltant they may be.
The Coult cannot embark upon an inquiry whether there
was any misuse or abuse of power in a particular case,
unless relief is sought by the person who is said to have been
wronged by such misuse or abuse of power. The Court F
cannot take upon itself the role of a commission of inqniry
- a knight errant roaming at will with a view to destroying
evil wherever it is found."
(Para 57, pp. 264-265) G
Venkataramiah, J. stated thus :
/t has, however, to be 1nade clear that it cannot be said
11
that lawyers only because they have a right to practise in a
court have 'locus standi' tn file petitions in respect of every H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A matter concerning judges, courts and administration of
justice. Tllere are many such matters in which they have
no 'locus standi' to ask for relief....
But for the active participation of these two persons,
the petitions regarding reliefs concerning them individual-
B ly would have probably become liable to be dismissed on
the ground that the lawyers have no 'locus standi' to make
these prayers.'
(Para 989, page 773)
c (emphasised supplied)
In S.P. Gupta while widening the 'locus standi' in matters of public
interest, the limitations to prevent abuse of the process of court were also
indicated and the case of only those judges was examined who were parties
D ~fore the Court.
We have dealt with this aspect at some length and also referred to
the decision in S.P. Gupta since in the present context it has become
necessary to reiterate the same to disabuse the mind of persons, like Raj
Kanwar, who insist that they have such a right in the abstract. Petitioner
E Raj Kanwar could have served the public interest better if he had assisted
Shri Kapil Sibal in the main petition, assuming he had something additional
to say. The assertion of petitioner Raj Kanwar that he has any such right
in the abstract is misconceived.
F Even though the hearing in these petitions had concluded before we
heard Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, yet we deferred the decision of these
writ petitions till now on the express request made by Shri Kapil Sibal not
to decide these matters before deciding Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992.
We add that on a reconsideration of the matter in the light of the
G exposition of law made by Brother K. Ramaswamy in his separate opinion
circulated to us, we regret our inability to concur with him in the area of
his disagreement. On the points decided by us, leaving open the points
which do not arise at this stage for our consideration for the reasons we
have given, preferring to follow the salutary practice of not deciding any
H question, much less a constituional one, unless it is necessary to do so, we
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY,J.] 75
would prefer to reserve our opinion on the remaining questions for the A
occassion, if any, in the future when they arise for decision.
For the aforesaid reasons, both these writ petitions fail and are
dismissed on the above preliminary grounds without going into the points
raised on merits herein which do not arise for consideration at the instance
B
of the petitioners at this stage on the conclusion we have reached. In view
of our conslusion to dismiss these writ petitions, it is unnecessary to decide
the pending I.As., including those for impleadment, which are accordingly
disposed of. No costs.
K. RAMASWAMY, J. I have bad the benefit of reading the draft C
judgment proposed by my learned brother Verma, J. With all due regards
and personal respect to my learned and esteemed brethren, it is my
-misfortune for my inability to tread their path. Therefore, I have chosen to
plough my lone farrow, since the matter is of great significance and the
questions to be decided bear wider significance. D
The short sift of the facts pertinent to the points posed are that 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 Veeraswarni Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of this Court, E
alleging commission of financial irregularities in the discharge of his ad-
ministrative duties as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Speaker admitted the motion on March 12, 1991 and constituted a
Committee comprising of Sri Justice P.B. Sawan~ a sitting Judge of this
Court, as Presiding Officer and Sri Justice P.D. Desai, the Chief Justice of
the Bombay High Court and Sri Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy, a retired F
Judge of this Court, a distinguished jurist as members under Section 3(2)
of Judges {Enquiry) Act 41 of 1968 (for short 'the Act'). 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 Constitution
and a host of writ petitions ensued, which were disposed of by a Constitution G
Bench reported in the Sub-Committee 011 Judicial Accountability v. Union
of India, [1991] 2 SCR 741 ' for short 'SCJA' in which this Court declared
that the motion admitted by the Speaker of the 9th Lok Sablla is valid; his
action under the Act is outside the Parliament; it did not lapse and directed
the Union of India to notify his constituting the Committee under Section H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A 3(2) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued by the Central
Government. The Secretary to the Committee issued notice in Form I of
the Judges (Enquiry) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') on January 14,
1992 communicating definite charges and requested Mr. Justice V. Rarnas-
wami to put in his written statement of defence on or before February 4,
B 1992 and to appear either in person or through counsel on February 10,
1992 along with his evidence. At request, George Fernandoz, Jaswanth
Singh, SCJA and the petitioner were permitted only to assist the Advocate
of the Committee to prove the case against the Judge and to keep secracy
of the facts and the proceedings, The petitioner's insistence to prove the
C innocence of the Judge was not acceded to. So he filed the Writ Petition.
When the matter came up the admiSsion- before a Bench of three
Judges on February 27, 1992 to which one of ns (KJ. Reddy, J.) was
member, having heard the learned counsel Sri Sibal, formulated the follow-
ing five questions, and having regard to the importance of those questions
D raised, referred the matter to the Constitution Bench.
(1) Sub-section (1) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,
mandates that the Speaker of the House of People shall
either admit or refuse to admit a motion for presenting
an address to the President of India for the removal of a
E Judge of the Supreme Court of India only 'after' consider-
ing such materials, if any, as may be available to him and
failure to comply with t)ie said sine-qua-non, viz. con-
sideration of available material before admitting the mo-
tion, vitiates his dec;ision for non-application of mind. In
F the present case since the then· Speaker, respondent No.
3 is not shown to have applied his mind to the available
material before admitting the motion, his decision to
admit the motion and constitute the Committee compris-
ing respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law.
G (2) Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry)
Act, 1968, invests the Speaker with the power to constitute
a Committee for the purpose of making an investigation
into the grounds on which the removal of the Judge is
sought, but such power must be exercised consistent with
H the established practice and norms and consistent with the
K. SWAMI v. U.O.l. (RAMASWAMY, J.] 77
idea of independence of judiciary, after consultation with A
the Chief Justice of India. In the present case all the three
Committee members were directly approached by the
Speaker, respondent No.3, who thereby departed from the
well established practice and hence the constitution of the
Committee clearly vitiated in law.
B
(3) Although sub-section {1) of Section 4 of the Judges
{Inquiry) Act empowers the Committee to regulate its
own procedure in making the investigation, which proce-
dure must be consistent with the rules of natural justice,
the committee has not outlined any procedure for inves- c
tigation and the procedure it has hitherto follow~d in
framing charges without undertaking any preliminary in-
vestigation to ascertain if there is sufficient prima fade
material for framing a charge and in refusing to provide
the concerned Judge with copies of documents sought on
unsustainable grounds and in permitting third parties to
D
assist the Committee through its counsel against the Judge
and in not permitting the petitioner to assist the Commit-
tee to establish the innocence of the Judge, the Committee
has completely mutilated the 'sui juris' character of the
investigation and thereby rendered the proceedings illegal E
and wholly inconsistent with the principles of natural
justice.
(4) If the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section
3 are read to mean that they empower the Committee to F
frame charges without holding a preliminary investigation
at which the concerned Judge may participate, the said
two sub-sections would be rendered ultra vires Article 124
(5) of the Constitution.
(5) When the Constitution Bench decided the case Sub- G
Committee on Judicial Accountablity v. Union of India &
Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 699 the proceeding which took place
in the House of People were not before it, which proceed-
ings now available, clearly indicate that the Speaker him-
self was alive to the fact that he was constitutionally H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A obliged to place the notice before the House and his
decision on the admission of the notice was to depend on
the collective wisdom of the House.
In view of this facutal aspect reflected in the proceedings
of the House, the decision of the Constitution Bench
B needs reconsideration.
The Secretary of the Committee and the interveners exchanged their
respective pleadings and placed evidence on record. We have had the
benefit of the arguments of all the learned counsel and also requested them
C to give exhaustively written arguments on all points raised in the matter.
Accordingly they have done. I have given my anxious consideration to all
the contentions and the materials placed in support thereof.
The substratum of the petitioner's pleas and ably argued by his
D learned Senior counse~ Sri Kapil Sibal are that Sri Rabi Roy, the Hon'ble
Speaker of the 9th Lok Sabha, the third respodnent herein, did not have
with him all the mateiral matrix before admitting the motion of remove the
Judge, nor applied his mind to the material to find prima facie case, which
is a condition precedent under the Act and the Rules, to be consistent with
E Art. 124 of the Constitution of India. He should have conducted prelimi-
nary enquiry in that behalf. The record doe.s not bear out any reason.
Non-application of the mind or bereft of reasons smacked the exercise of
jurisdiction by the Speaker to admit the motion and at any rate it is illegal.
:rJlls court on the ealier occassion did not have the advantage of the record
now available to deal with this aspect. The petitioner being a non-party is
F not bound by the Constitution Bench Judgement which requires fresh look
in the light of the above material. The constitution of the Committee
without consulation and nomination by the Chief Justice of India became
illegal. The enquiry, not having been preceded by any investigation, is ultra
vires of Article 124(5) of the Constitution. If it is otherwise, sub-secs. (3)
G & ( 4) of section 3, section 4(1), etc. of the Act are ultra vires or Art. 124
(4). He further contends that the Committee cannot be a prosecutor and
a Judge. Before framing defmite charges, it has to conduct an investigation
into the allegations after giving reasonable opportunity to the learned
Judge. The Committee did not adopt that procedure. Instead, it framed
H charges which lack factual foundation nor are supported by unimpeachable
K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 79
evidence. There is dichotomy between investigation and enquiry. In the. A
investigation, the committee, after giving reasonable opportunity to the
Judge, was to find whether from the material the charges could be framed
and if it finds in the negative, the need to conduct the enquiry does not
arise and it should report accordingly to the Speaker who would drop
further action. Only after the investigation, finding that there is prima facie B
material or evidence, definite charges shall be framed, followed by an
enquiry conducted against the learned Judge after giving reasonable op-
portunity. The enquiry shall be confmed only between the learned Judge
and the committee. The Advocate appointed to assist the committee
cannot proceed as if he is a prosecutor against the learned Judge. The C
committee did not inform the Judge before hand as to what procedure it
seeks to follow in this matter. The committee committed manifest illegality
in permitting Messrs. George Fernandoz and Jaswanth Singh and the SCJA
to participate as persicutors against the learned Judge. They have no locus
standi either to participate or adduce evidence against the Judge. The
specious plea of purity of judicial administration is an actuated pretence D
to malign the Judge. The evidence establishes that the advocate for the
committee along with the advocates of the Members of Parliament and the
SCJA and prior consultations and in fact tutored the witnesses before the
proceedings commenced which is repugnant to the dignity of judicial
process impinging upon Article 21 as an unfair procedure. The Committee E
itself cross-examined the witnesses that answered favourably to the Judge.
On the basis of the material placed before the court, he argued that the
evidence does not establish any of the charges levelled against the learned
Judge. His conduct to attract Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the
Act as misbehaviour impinging upon the integrity of the learned Judge F
must be grave but not the trivial administrative lapses to initiate proceed-
ings for removal or an enquiry thereon. Diverse circumstances available
before the committee would not establish any misbehaviour by the learned
Judge. Sri Altemesh Rein, Advocate-intervener, conteded that the alleged
misbehaviour was committed while discharging his duties as Chief Justice G
of Punjab and Haryana High Court; as per Article 217 (1) (C), on his
elevation to this Court, they ceased to be of any relevance for an investiga-
tion under Article 124 (5); the Act and the Rules, the action does not touch
upon his misbehaviour as a Judge of this court which alone is germane. So
the motion for removal and consequent enquiry are devoid of jurisdiction
H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A and authority of law.
Sri G. Ramaswamy, the learned Attorney General contends that the
Union of India did not file any counter, nor is interested in taking any
particular stand in the matter. As Attorney General, on notice, contends
B that in a public interest litigation the essential requirement is that the
petitioner must be genuinely interested to seek declaration of public law.
Only persons like busy body or actuated with malice, should h~ve no locus
standi. The petitioner, being an advocate and a Member of Parliament, gets
sufficient interest to maintain the writ petition. The omission to implead
the learned Judge, though ideal to have him impleaded, does not become
C an handicap to declare the law which would bind the learned Judge as well.
But the relative merits of the dispute personal to the learned Judge should
not be considered, nor be given relief. For example in respect of the relief
by the petitioner concerning the alleged bias by the committee, the writ
petition is not' maintainable at his behest. The procedure for investigation
D and proof of misbehaviour under Art. 124(5) of tlte Constitution and Secs.
4(1) and 3(3) of the Act are distinct and different. The former refers to
inquisitorial and the later partakes of adversarial. Section 3(3) of the Act
occupies the field of adversary process whereas Sec. 4(1) encompasses
both. "Investigation" acquired distinct connotation under Item 8 of the List
I of 7th Schedule to collect evidence to facilitate enquiry or trial. In support
E thereof he placed reliance on the provisions in the Code of Criminal
Procedure. During the investigation the authority is empowered, without
predisposition, to sift the evidence and the enquiry confines to the field of
proof of the charge for the determination of the guilt or innocence and to
record a finding in that behalf. This would be done as an independent
F Tribunal or as Court after giving opportunity to the contending parties to
adduce evidence. Its endeavour is to bring out the truth and not to bolster
up the case. The counsel for the Tribunal has no role to play in proof of
misbehaviour against the Judge. There can be neither a counsel for nor
witnesses of the Committee. It is enjoined to adjudicate the credibility of
G evidence and reach its conclusions of guilt or innocence but not to act as
prosecutor to prove the case against the Judge. The correctness of the
procedure adapted by the Committee hinges upon the declaration of law
in this behalf by this court for which the learned Judge is neither a
necessary, nor a proper party. Even otherwise in his absence also the
declaration would be given which binds him. No third party other ti.an the
H learned Judge and the Advocate appointed under Section 3(9) of the Act
K. SWAMJ v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY, J.] 81
has a right to participate or adduce evidence during the investigation and A
enquiry done by the committee. The decision in SCJA case requires
reconsideration. Even otherwise the declaratory reliefs of public law could
1 be made by this court.
l Sri Nariman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commit- B
tee with equal ability fairly contended that the petitioner has neither locus
standi nor the writ petition maintainable to review the earlier decision. The
motion for removal of the learned Judge is a political process. Though the
Speaker is a statutory authority, he does not act like a judicial or ad-
ministrative authority to record reasons before admitting the motion. He
is a constitutional functionary of high authority. The fact that he admitted C
the motion does indicate that he had applied his mind and found prima
facie grounds to admit the motion for removal of the learned Judge.
Accordingly, he admitted the motion and constituted the committee. It is
neither necessary for him to make prior investigation nor give notice to the
Judge. It is not mandatory that he should consult the Chief Justice of India. D
It is his discretion. The consitution of the Committee without consulting
the Chief Justice of India is not illegal. The committee is not required to
make investigation befor~ framing definite charges. The committee is to
consider the record sent by the Speaker and if it found prima facie evidence
or material to frame defmite charge , or it would be open to the committee
to do so and issue notice in Form I to foe Learned Judge. Before framing E
the charges, the learned Judge is not entitled to any notice or opportunity.
Only after communication of the charges in Form I, the learned Judge is
entitled to submit his written statement of defence and also his adducing
evidence in support thereof. He is also entitled to legal assistance as well
as to be heard. Investigation and enquiry contemplated under the Act and F
the Rules is overlapping and synonymous. Even if the learned Judge opts
to remain exparte, the committee is obligated to conduct the enquiry into
the definite charges and the Advocate be appointed to assist the committee
to prove the charges framed against the learned Judge by adducing
evidence. The committee consists of eminent members having long judicial G
experience and impeccable integrity and erudite. The proceedings before
the committee are in the nature of a trial of a civil suit in which the learned
Judge or his counsel and the Advocate alone are entitled to participate and
lead evidence. Permission to third party to participate in the proceedings
flows from the.discretion of the committee to adopt its own procedure and
in exercise thereof limited right to participate in tJ.e enquiry was given to H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A third parties. The committee has to submit its report recording find-
ing/findings whether or not the charge or charges has/have been proved. If
the committee finds that charges have been proved, then the political
process under Article 124(4) again would revive if the committee finds that
the charge have not been proved, then the Speaker has to drop the
proceedings in terms of the Act and the Rules. The petitioner cannot seek
B the reliefs asked for in the writ petition. The Judge alone is entitled to
impugne the proceedings or claim for reasonable opportunity. Since the
learned Judge opted to remain ex parte, the petitioner annot challege the
proceedings since any adverse findings given by this court would not bind
the Judge as he is not eo nominee party to the writ petition. He also further
C contended that neither the decision in SOA case is open to be reviewed
nor the petitioner has locus to do so. Sri Jitendra Sharma, Secretary of the
Supreme Court Bar Association adopted the contentions of Sri N ariman.
Sri Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior counsel for SOA, while supporting
Sri Nariman, further argued with ususal vehemence that they are bona fide
D interested to uphold the dignity of the court and the efficacy of the rule of
law; they are also interested that the learned Judge should come out
unscathed at the earliest; their locus was upheld by this court, and they are
interested to bring on record the true and correct facts. The permission
granted b~ the Committee is not illegal. The members of the Parliament
having moved the motion are interested to prove the allegations.
E
The main question that needs adjudication is whether the petitioner has
locus to maintain the writ petition. Indisputably, the petitioner is an advocate
of Madras High Court Bar and he is also a Member of the parliament. There-
fore, it cannot be said that he is a pro bono publico. His genuine interest to
F uphold the dignity of the judiciary is not doubted The petitioner sought time
to implead the learned Judge as a party respodnent to the \\Tit petition. But
ultimately, it was given up. By itself it would not detract, if the relief/reliefs
othe.rwise would be considered and given. The facts present interpretaiton of
the constitution, the scope of the Speaker's power to admit the motion to
G remove a Judge, his dignity coupled with the independence of the judiciary,
the pivotal organ of the State. Some of the questions raised are offar-reaching
importance. As a member of the Bar, he would definitely be interested in
settling the law of the procedure to remove a Judge of higher judiciary under
Article 124(5); read 'vith the Act and the Rules. Moreover, the procedure for
the removal of a Judge is sui generis. The discretion left to the committee
H under section 4(1) of the Act to regulate its own procedure to investigate into
K.SWAM!v. U.0.L[RAMASWAMY,J.] 83
the definite charges against the learned Judge bears vital importance. It is trite A
to burden the judgment with bead roll of precedents but suffice to reiterate
that any member of the public having sufficienfinterest could maintain an
action for judicial redress from public inquiry arising out of the breach of
public duty or of law and seek enforcement of such public, constitutional or
legal duty. Strict rule oflocus was relaxed and personal right enforcement was B
whittled down. The ratio in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 at
p. 530 D to Fis an authority on this score. In the public interest, therefore, any
person genuinely interested to uphold independence of the judiciary and the
law would get sufficient interest and acquires locus to seek to lay down public
law in that behalf. The writ petition, therefore, should not be thrown out on the
ground that the petitioner lacks locus to litigate the lis. But every Advocate C
need not be heard which would be only a surplusage at the hands of Raj
Kanwar. In that behalf I agree with the view of brother Verma, J.
The question then is whether the writ petition is by way of a review
of the earlier decision. It is settled law that a judgment of this Court cannot D
be impugned or its correctness assailed by way of another writ petition on
any ground whatever. In N.S, Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, [1966] 3 SCR
745 nine Judges Bench held that the judicial order is not liable to be
questioned in a writ petition. The same view was reiterated by another
Seven Judges' Bench in A.R. Antulay v. N.S. Naik, [1988] l Suppl. SCR 1.
It would thus be held that the correctness of the judgment of this court in E
SCJA's case is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.
Sri Kapil Sibal, therefore, contends that the petitioner is not assailing
the correctness of that judgment but he is placing another facet touching the
jurisdiction of the Speaker, in admitting the motion and constituting the com- F
mittee under the Act to conduct the enquiry, on the basis of fresh material
which was not available to this court when SCJA's case was decided. It is
settled law that it is the decision and not the reasons in support thereof that
would be conclusive and binds all parties. Therefore, even if there is any addi-
tional material that was subsequently discovered, it would be oflittle avail to
assial the correctness of the judgment except by way of review before the G
Bench the decidedSCJA 's case.
The Constitution confers in explicit language judicial review on the
Supreme Court and by operation of Articles 138, 139 and 140, enlarged that
power, to alongate and effectively adjudicate the questions doing full and H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A effective justice. The power of judicial review i.' to stamp out, excesses in
exercise of power, injustice or miscarriage of justice. The decision of this court
is the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws as law of
the land under Art. 141. The Judge is the living orade working in dry light of
realism pouring life and force into the dry bones of law to articulate the felt
necessities of the time. The Judge, in particular from the higher judiciary
B possesses undoubtedly, power and jurisdiction to decide rightly or may err as
well. The error must be corrected as provided under law. In its ebsence, it
cannot be disturbed. The superior court has jurisdiction and power to deter-
mine its own jurisdiction and error in that behalf does not constitute an error
of jurisdiction. The people would shape their course of conduct or dealings or
C legal affairs in accordance with law. The law laid down by this court operates
as precedent. The law laid, thus, needs stabilify, continuity and certainty. The
judicial vacilation would undermine the respect for the law and the utility of
the very judicial process as well as its efficacy. We are bound by the taught
traditions and built-in heritage oflaw. Adherence to precedents, state decisis,
D is usually a wise policy for rule of law unless we have clear, compelling and
substantial reasons for its reconsideration in the larger public interest. Recon-
sideration of an earlier view is not due to an act of judicial fallibility but an
index of supremacy of law. So when all the relevant provisions of law or
material aspects of the case or binding precedent was not brought to the
notice of the court and its impact on the general administration of law, it
E would need reconsideration. The.obvious error comnritted by the court lead-
ing to miscarriage of justice would need correction by Article 142 or section
114read with Order47Rule 1orse~tion151 C.P.C. etc. But by itself it is not a
licence to unsettle the settled law or keep the law at variance at pleasure or
whim.
F
This Court is K£shav Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.l T. Bombay, [1965] 2 SCR
908 at 921-922 laid that :-
n1n re\'iewing and revising its earlier decision, this Court
should ask itself whether in the interests of the public good
G or for any other valid and compulsive reasons, it is neces-
sary that the earlier decision should be revised When this
Court decides questions of law, its decisions are, under
Article 141 binding on all courts within the territor:;· of
I~dia, and so, it must be constant endeavour and concern
H of this court to introduce and maintain an element of cer-
K. SWAMI''· U.O.l. [RAMASWAMY, J.] 85
tainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the A
country. Frequent exercise by the court of its power to
review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view
pressed before it later appears to the court to be more
reasonable, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain
and introduce confusion which must be consistently
B
avoided. That is not to say that if on a subsequent oc-
casion, the court is satisfied that its earlier decision was
clearly erroneous, it should hesitate to correct the error;
but before a previous decision is pronounced to be plainly
erroneous, the court must be satisfied with a fair amount
of unanimity amongst its members that a revision of the c
said view is fully justified. It is not possible or desirable,
and in any case it would be inexpedient to lay down any
principles which should govern the approach of the court
in dealing with the question of reviewing and revising its
earlier decisions. It would always depend upon several D
relevant considerations:-
What is the nature of the infirmity or error on which a
plea for a review and revision of the earlier view is based?
On the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the
question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the E
court not drawn to any relevant and material statutory
provision, or was any previous decision of this· court bear-
ing on the point not noticed? Is the court hearing such
plea fairly unanimous that there is such an error in the
earlier view? What would be the impact of the error on F
the general administration of law or on public good? Has
the earlier decision been followed on subsequent oc-
casions either by this court or by the High Courts? And,
would the reversal of the earlier decision lead to public
inconvenience, hardship or mischief? These and other
relevant considerations must be carefully borne in mind G
whenever this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdic-
tion to review and revise its earlier decisions. These con-
siderations become still more significant when the earlier
decision happens to be a unanimous decision of a Bench
of five. l<;~.r°:ed Judges of this Court." H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754, para 24 this
Court laid stress on the importance of finality of decisions rendered by the
Constitution Bench of this Court; it could only be upset where the subject
was of such fundamental importance to national life or the reasoning is so
plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that "it is wiser to be
B ultimately right rather than to be consistantly wrong". The majority ratio in
A.R. Antulay v. N.S. Naik (supra) rests upon its peculiar facts offending
Arts. 14 and 21 and so the earlier direction for trial by a High Court Judge
was reversed. The rule of law laid by this court, from the above perspective,
in SCTA's case is clear, precise, certain and needs to maintain consistence.
It is, therefore, not desirable to reopen the said ratio. But this finding does
C not conclude the controversy. Facts gave rise to diverse questions of far
reaching importance which had not arisen when the earlier decision was
rendered or canvassed.
The public are vitally interested in the cleanliness of the public ad-
D ministration of justice which is of paramount importance. Public justice is the
hall mark of public good. A person genuinely or bona fide interested in seek-
ing declaration of law of public importance would always get sufficient inter-
est and be entitled to seek declaration on that behalf which binds not only the
State but every person, even if affected thereby, though not eo nominee a party
respondent to the proceedings. A relief in favour of that person in his absence
E could in an appropriate case also be granted. InMakhanlal Waza and Ors. v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1971] 1 SCR 749 at 753 para 6 the Constitution
Bench held that the law declared by this court was binding on the State and its
officers and they are bound to follow it whether majority of the respondents
were parties or not to the previous petition. In S.P. Gupta's case this court
F having regard to the magnitude and importance of the constitutional ques-
tions involved in the cases accorded locus to the Advocates. In B. Prabhakara
Rao and Ors. v. State of A.P., [1985] Suppl. SCR 432 this court held that the
relief claimed is of a general nature and against the state and so the failure to
implead all the affected parties is not a bar to maintain the writ petition.
SCJA's case itself is an authority for the proposition of declaration of public
G law when laid by the Advocates. In this case Three Judges' Bench referred
public law questions to this Bench which are of wider constitutional ramifica-
tions touching upon the independence of judiciary and the interpretation of
the constitution and the Act.
H In the larger public interest, as the questions have arisen for the first
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY, J.] 87
time, it would be just and fit for this court to declare the law of proper A
procedure to be followed in admitting the motion to remove a judge of
higher judiciary and the investigation thereon by the committee so that it
would be the law of the land under Art. 141 of the Constitution. Though
it would be ideal to implead the learned Judge as respondent, his absence
too would stand to no impediment to declare public law which would bind B
him too. In that view, it must be held that the petitioner being a legal
practitioner would be entitled to seek only declaration of law of certain
aspects which would be adverted to hereinafter.
This Court in SC/A's case held that the Speaker of the House of the
People is a "statutory authority''. Under Article 93 of the Constitution, the C
House of the People haivng chosen the Speaker, he/she holds the office till
he/she ceases, as per Article 94 to be a member of the Vouse of.the People
or removed or resigned. The office of the Speaker is of trust by the House
of the People elected by adult franchise by the people. Under section 3(1)
(a), on presentation of a motion praying for the removal.of a Judge signed D
by not less than 100 members of the House of the People, "the Speaker",
"may'' under section 3(1) of the Act, after consulting "such persons", if any,
as he thinks fit and "after considering such material", if any, as may be
available to him either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.
The primary requisite which the Speaker is enjoined to do is to find E
whether the motion was signed by not less than 100 members of the House
of the People. Equally, he is required to consider the grounds and the
materials, if any, available to him, before taking a decision to admit or
refuse to admit the same. The word 'may' though couched with discretion,
when the exercise of the power effects the rights of the Judge, causes F
convulsions on judiciary and generate psychological set back on ongoing
process, the Speaker was authorised to wisely exercise discretionary power
by consulting such persons, if any, as he may have chosen and thinks fit to
be consulted. Before admitting the motion, it may be expected and may be
prudent that the Speaker may consult persons like the Chief Justice of
India, the fountain head of judiciary, and the Attorney General of India, G
the Principal Advisor of the Govt., whose duty should be to give advice
upon legal matters or to perform such duties of legal character. If the
Speaker consults, Chief Justice of India he would help him by proper
advice, and the Attorney General is under the consitutional duty lo tender
advice and to assist the Hon'ble Speaker to discharge the constitutional H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A fucntion, i.e. to decide in admitting or refusing to admit the motion to
remove the judge of the constitutional judiciary. It is also equally salutary
that before admitting the motion to remove the Judge, there shall exist
factual foundation. The grounds mentioned in the motion, the material or
evidence placed in s·dpport thereof and the advice tendered, if consulted,
woufrl form "the record". He would consider that record and filter the
B process before deciding to initiate proceedings or refusal thereof. He need
not weigh the pros and cons to find prima facie case. He ·acts, neither as a
quasi-judicial nor an administrative authority but, purely as a constitutional
functionary and with high sense of responsibility and on due consideration
of 'the record' and arrives at a decision to admit or refuse to admit the
C motion to remove the Judge. The Speaker, therefore, would act with utmost
care, caution, circumspection and responsibility and wholly guided by
considerations of larger interest of the public administration of justice. He
would equally keep in his gaze and in the mind the seriousness of the
imputations, nature and quality of the recqrd before him and "its indelible
D chilling effect on the public adminstration of justice and independence of
the judiciary in the estimate of the general public". Existence of definite
material or evidence in support of the grounds of the motion, before
initiation of the motion for removal of the Judge is, thus, a condition
precedent. Lest it would be an open invitation to initiate, for obvious
reasons, proceedings to remove the Judge and then resort to collecting
E perjured evidence in support thereof against the judge which is subversive
of judicial independence and a death- knell to rule of law. Action in any
other way, the Speaker would forfeit the trust reposed by the founding
fathers of the Constitution in that office as well as the confidence of the
House of People, i.e. the people of Bharat themselves. The fact that the
F committee framed charges from the record transmitted by the Speaker for-
tifies that he had before him definite mateiral and it furnishes presumptive
inference that he had due consideration thereof before admitting the motion.
The question then is the scope of judicial review of the admission of
the motion by the Speaker. Articles 32, 131 to 136 entrust in express terms
G judicial review to the Supreme Court; in particular Article 32 as the
ultimate repository and guardian of the rights and liberties of the people.
The constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It limits, as its
touchstone, the powers and functions of the organs of the State, viz. the
Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Constitution also demar-
H cated and delienated the powers and functions of these organs which
K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 89
implies that each organ would maintain a delicate balance with self-im- A
posed restrictions for smooth functioning of the parliamentary democracy
to establish an egalitarian social order under rule of law. Judicial review
thus is an incident of and flows form the constitution to securing and
protecting the welfare of the people as effectively as it may, according
justice - social, economic and political in all the institutions of national life.
Court is the living voice of the Constitution which stands against any winds
B
that blow as a heaven of refuge to those who might otherwise suffer due
to their helplessness, inability, non-conformity, handicaps, exploitation,
victims of prejudice or public excitement etc. The paramount duty of ,he
court is to protect their rights and translate the glorious and dynamic
contents of the Directive Principles and the fundamental rights as a liVIng c
law, making them meaningful to all manner of people.
In this light the question emerges whether the decision of the
Speaker to admit the motion to remove the judge moved by requisite
number of members of the House of the People is amenable to judicial D
review. Undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of
law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/func-
tionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from
the record. Reasons are the. links between the material, the foundation for
their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate
how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational E
nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached.
Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Art. 14 or unfair
procedure offending Art.21. But exceptions are envisaged keeping institu-
tional pragmatism into play, conscious as we are of each other's limitations.
The process t:i remove a Judge under Art. 124 (4) consists of several steps, F
i.e. the O:.otion duly moved i.e. consideration of the record by the Speaker
and decision to admit the motion; his immediate constituting of the Com-
mittee under Sec.3(2) of the Act; drawing up of definite charges by the
Committee and investigation for proof of misbehaviour or incapacity after
adhering to the procedure envisaged therein; recording finding or fmdings
thereon and transmission of the report and the evidence to the Speaker G
and in case of proof of misbehaviour or incapacity placing the report and
the evidence on the floor of the House and address by each house and
majority resolution recommending to the President to remo,,~ the Judge.
The entire process though integral, all the steps in the process do not take
the same colour of judicial process but bear different contours. The initia- H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A tion of the motion is statutory and address by each house and resolution
recommending removal of the Judge are political process. Its admission,
the constitution of the committee are statuto:y functions. Investigation by
the Committee is judicial process. The Speaker, in this setting, acts !leither
as an Executive authority nor as a quasi-judicial authority. He merely
discharges the functions of high constituional responsibility. His decision
B to admit the motion to remove the Judge of the Constitutional Court for
absence of reasons stated or staring from the record is not violative of Art. 14
or Art. 21 of the Constitution nor offends the principles of natural justice.
Section 3(2) of the Act also does not envisage to place the motion
C as an agenda before the Lok Sabha to secure the collective wisdom of the
House before admitting or refusing to admit the motion. The Act exclusive-
ly confers on the Speaker the power, to his/her individual discretion, to
take a decision in this behalf. The further contention that the Speaker is
constitutionally obligated to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the
D veracity of the grounds made in the motion and to determine whether or
not prima facie case for investigation has been made out is devoid of
substance. As seen earlier, he merely performs, though as a statutory
authority, a constitutional function to admit or refuse to admit the motion
to remove the Judge. The Constitution entrusted to the Speaker that
responsibility with the expectation that he acts as a reasonable man, as
E stated earlier, with high degree of responsibility, considers the grounds for
the removal in the motion and the record before taking a decision to admit
the motion or refusal thereof. The further allegation that the Speaker acted
at the behest of the J anata Dal and Bhartiya J anta Party and that the
admission of the motion "coloured by political motivation" is not based on
F any acceptable factual foundation and is personal to the Judge.
Whether the Speaker is enjoined to consult the Chief Justice of India
before constituting the Committee under Sec.3(2) or seek nomination of a
sitting Judge of this Court or one of the High Courts' Chief Justices is the
next question. Section 3(2) contemplates that if the motion to remove a
G Judge is admitted, the Speaker shall, keep the motion pending and con-
stitute, as soon as may be, a Committee "for the purpose of investigation into
the grounds on which the removal of a Judge is prayed for" (emphasis
supplied) under S.3(1) consiSting of a sitting Judge of this Court, one of
the Chief Justices of the High Courts and a distinguished Jurist. Ex facie,
H it enjoins no obligation on the Speaker to have consultation with the Chief
K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 91
Justice of India nor to seek nomination of a sitting Judge of the Supreme A
Court in terms of Section 3(2)(a) or one referred to in clause (b). It is his
individual choice to constitute the Committee after obtaining the consent
of the concerned member/members. The constitution of the Committee,
therefore, without consultation of the Chief Justite of India or his nomina·
tion of any of the members is not per se illegal. I~ is desirable and salutary B
that the Speaker and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may set up convention
in this behalf. As it is a first case the failure thereof is neither subversive
of Art. 124(5) nor dehors section 3(2) of the Act. The Act fastens no
obligation to ascertain collective wisdom of the House through either
political parties or their floor leaders. The further contention that the
Speaker ought not to have directly approached a sitting Judge of this Court C
seeking his consent in terms of Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, also lacks
substance. The further contention that the sitting Judge of this court and
the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court are not performing their normal
constitutional duties when they act as members of the Committee under
the Act unless the President of India gives his consent and. treats the D
function as part of their duties by a notification, does not appear to be well
founded. Giving consent is one part. Performance of duties as members of
the Committee is a different facet. There is no constitutional obligation to
obtain prior consent of the President. But before entering upon the duties
by a sitting Judge of this court and the Chief Justice of a High Court as
Presiding Officer and member of the Committee respectively, a notifica- E
tion, as directed to be issued in this behalf in SOA's case, is necessary. In
this situation, the latter contention lost its luster. That apart the admission
of th motion wa; already upheld by this Court.
The next question is the validity and legality of the procedure F
adopted by the Committee to investiglon into the illeged misbehaviour.
To appreciate that question in its proper perspective and to cull out its
effect, it is necessary to note the pertinent provisions of the Constitution,
the Act and the Rules. The foundation to remove a Judge under Art. 124
(4) through political process, is the "proved misbehaviour or incapacity".
Art. 124(5) envisages to regulate the procedure by law for the presentation G
of the address and "investigation and proof' of the misbehavi~ur or in-
capacity. Section 4(1) provides the procedure thus :
"Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the
Committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A in making the investigation ...... 11
The .Rules expressly do not provide any specific procedure in this
behalf. Two members of the Parliament, viz. Sri George Fernandez from
Janata Dal and Sri Jaswant Singh from Bhartiya Janta Party and the SCJA
sought permission, to place on record certain material in their possession
B
said to be against the learned Judge and to lead evidence against him
through their counsel and it granted conditional permission to assist the
Advocate appointed under Sec. 3(9) to conduct the case against the
learned Judge. A conjoint reading of Sec. 3(3) (framing of definite charges
for investigation; their supply, together with a statement of grounds on
C which each charge is based to the Judge; his right of objections to the
charges under rule 6 read with Section 3(8) and. if found tenable, revision
thereof by rule 7, giving reasonable opportunity to present his fresh written
statement of defence under Secs. 3(8) and 3(4) and rule 7; right to cross
examine witnesses; adduction of evidence in defence; right of hearing
D under Sec. 4(1) before submitting the report coupled with the duty to
conduct ex parte enquiry under rule (8), if the Judge refuses to participate,
does indicate that the Parliament intended that the investigation into the
misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge, shall be confined only between
the advocate appointed under Sec. 3(9) of the Act and the learned Judge
or his counsel who alone are entitled to participate and lead evidence in
E proof or disproof of the charges be heard. By necessary implication, the
Act and the Rules exclude participation or adduction of evidence by any
other person to prove the· alleged misbehaviour or incapacity. In the virgin
area, the Committee appears to liave permitted them hedged with condi-
tions to subserve the purpose. But none should be permitted to sully the
F reputation, integrity or conduct of the Judge concerned by subsequently
fabricating any material or adduction of evidence de hors the one already
placed before the Speaker who transmitted to the Committee or the one
summoned by the Committee. The contention of Sri Shanti Bhushan that
108 members who moved the motion are interested to participate and
prove the charges against the Judge runs counter to the scheme of the Act
G and the Rules and does not warrant acceptance. The political process starts
only with the requisite members of the Parliament moving the motion and
it is the only mode to set in motion the process to remove a Judge.
Undoubtedly, they are people's representatives but the law makers did not
preserve to themselves the role of the prosecutor but assigned it to the
H Advocate appointed under section 3(9) and referred to the Speaker to set
K.SWAMlv. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 93
up the committee to investigate into the misbehaviour since the consitution A
had already preserved their right to participate in the address to the
President on the floor of each House of the Parliament to discuss the
conduct of the Judge. Their statutory obligation under section 3(1) was to
state the grounds to move the motion praying for removal of the Judge with
requisite majority; and to lay the evidence before the Speaker/Chairman.
Their right to participation would revive only when the report and the
B
evidence with finding/findings that the misbehaviour or incapacity has been
proved was laid on the floor of the House and discussion was initiated
under Art. 124(4) and the Rules.
This statutory and constitutional setting and larger public interest c
furnishes unerring source to conclude that no third party has right to barge
or butt in the proceedings and that non be permitted to participate in the
investigation nor entitled to adduce evidence for or against the Judge. It is
the Judge and the Advocate alone to participate and prove or disprove the
charge/charges and be heard. No one except the Judge, in the event of an D
adverse fincrlng of guilt and none, when the Judge was absolved of the
charge/charges, be permitt~d to assail the correctness, legality or validity
of the proceedings, process or fmdings of guilt or not guilty. None has
rights or interest with askance eye to parade the correctness of the
proceedings or conclusions of the Committee, nor to avail judical review.
E
The further contention that the procedure under the Commissions
of Enquiry Act of public notice inviting evidence.. against the Judge from
any person who has such evidence in his possession gets crushed by the
teeth of the built in procedure prescribed in the Act and the Rules. Lest
it would be, as stated earlier, and open invitation to the disgruntled to place F
fabricated evidence and it would be fraught with grave dangers, endless
investigation and protraction for publicity seeding insidious effects. It is
transparent from the scheme that any evidence sought to be used against
the Judge must be laid by the requisite members of the house of people or
Rajya Sabha before the Speaker/Chairman and none be permitted there- G
after. Take for instance that in the motion the grounds of misbehaviour
with material facts or particulars were made and photostate copies in
support thereof were enclosed. To satisfy and ensure correctness, authen-
ticity and· reliability the Enquiry Committee may summon the original
records even before framing a charge. On a charge of corruption the
grounds with material particulars were mentioned and the source was also H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. l S.C.R.
A specified. But there may not be any documentary evidence, in support
thereof. Often would not be available, or the person in possession of such
evidence may not be willing to commit himself before hand. The Commit-
tee has discretion depending upon the nature o; the source or its depend-
ability or reliability to frame a charge or may summon the person to swear
to an affidavit and later may be examined as a witness or to tender occular
B evidence at the investigation and be subjected to cross-examination. Sup-
pose the grounds of corruption are delightfully vague, bereft of particulars
and the source was not specified, it may be that the Committee may not
feel it expedient to frame even a charge. Suppose eveil when the details
and source were specified in the gronnds, but if the Committee feels that
C the source is highly doubtful, nndependable, etc. it may be open to the
Committee to refrain from framing charge/charges. It is, thus, clear that
the Act left wide discretion to the Committee to device its own procedure
and adopt its own fnnction during the investigatin to discover and collect
the evidence. This perspective leads us to conclude that the permission
D granted to M/s George Fernandoz and Jaswant Singh and SCJA is illegal
and without authority of law and jurisdiction. Any adverse evidence against
the learned Judge placed or adduced by ' them which was not already part
of the record of the Speaker, should be expunged, should not be con-
sidered and be excluded from the record of evidence to the Committee.
E Equally, the contention that the procedure envisaged in Sec. 3(3), (4)
and Section 4 are nnconstitutional and ultra vires of the Art. 124(4) of the
Constitution is misconceived. Article 124(4) of the Constitution postulates
that the Judge of the Supreme Court/High Court shall not be removed
from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address
F by each House of the Parliament supported by a majority of the total
membership of that House and by majority not less than two-thirds of the
members of the House present and voting has been presented to the
President in the same session for such removal, on the "ground of proved
misbehaviour or incapacity". Sub-Article (5) thereof regulates by law the
procedure for the presentation of the address and for the "investigation
G and proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge". In exercise of the
power nnder Article 124(5) read with Article 246(1) and entry 77 of List
I of Vllth Schedule to the Constitution, the Act was made.
Under Sec. 3(1) the motion for removal of the Judge must contain
H "the gronnds on which the removal of the Judge was prayed for". It is
K.SWAM!v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY,J.] 95
obvious that the grounds are based on sufficient material or evidence. A
Section 3(3) envisages that "the committee shall frame definite charges
agaiost the Judge 'on the basis of which the investigation is proposed to be
held". (emphasis supplied} Sub-section (4) thereof contemplates of com-
munication in Form I of the Rules, of those charge/charges so framed,
together with a statement of the grounds on which each such charge is B
based. On consideration of the grounds and the material or evidence in the
motion the definite charge/charges are to be framed which is the founda-
tion to start investigation to prove the charges. Members of the Parliament
are not familiar to or versed with the process or distinction between
grounds and charge. They need to state the grounds and it is the duty of
the committee to scan the evidence or material and to frame definite C
charge or charges. A reasonable opportunity for presentation of the written
statement of the defence within a specified time should be given to the
Judge who has the right to object in writing to the sufficiency of the framed
charges. If the objection it sustaioed, the Committee_ would amend the
charges under sec. 3(8) read with Rule 7; and the Judge be given D
reasonable opportunity to present fresh written statement. If the Judge
admits that he is guilty of misbehaviour or suffers from incapacity, the
Committee shall record such admission and may state its finding on each
of the charges in accord:lllce with such admission [Rule 7(1)). lf the Judge
denies the charge/charges or refused or omits or is unable to plead or
desires that the Committee shall proceed with the enquiry under Sec 4(1), E
or if the Judge does not appear, on proof of service as per rule 3, the
Committee may proceed with the enquiry ex parte. Under sec. 3(9) the
Central Govt. may appoint at the request of the Speaker/Chairman an
Advocate to conduct the case against the Judge. Rule 11(1) gives the Judge
the right to consult and be defended by an Advocate of his choice line in F
Art. 22(1Yof the Constitution. Section 5 give~ the committee all the powers
of the Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, to summon the witnesses required, discovery and production of the
documents, to receive evidence on oath, issue commissions for the ex-
amination of witnesses or documents or such other matters as may be
prescribed. The advocate obviously should examine witnesses under G
sec.4(1) to prove the case against the Judge with an opportunity to the
latter to cross-examine those witnesses; and addnction of his own evidence
in rebuttal and an opportunity of hearing in his defence. Under Sec. 4(2)
read with Rule 9, at the conclusion of the investigation, the committee
H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A should submit to the Speaker a report with its findings on each charge
separately if there are more than one with such ob•ervations on the whole
case as it thinks fit. If the report is not unanimous as per sub-rule (1) of
Rules 9 majority view in terms of sub-rule (4) thereof should be communi-
cated. If the majority finds that the charges are not proved and one
member found the misbehaviour or incapacity proved it should be kept
B confidential and withheld to the Parliament or any other authority, body
or person. Under Rule 10, the evidence of each witnes~ exami!led by the
Committee should be taken down in writing and under the personal
dictation and superintendence of the Presiding Officer thereof. The
provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall, as far as may be, apply for
c the examination of any witness in the inquiry. The majority finding of guilt
forms the base for report. The evidence and the documents together with
report of proved misbehaviour/incapacity should be laid before each House
of the Parliament along with the report and evidence and minority contra
view sent unde~ section 4(2).
D
A resume of the fascicule of these provisions would show that the
committee has been empowered to regulate its own procedure, as is ex-
igible, based on fact situation, to make investigation into the charge/charges
of the misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge consistent with the Act,
Rules and fair play like the trial of a civil suit. if the Committee finds that
E
there is no prima facie evidence to frame even charges, the need to proceed
further into the charge/charges is obviated. It would be entitled to record
findings together with a statement of general observations of the case and
would submit its report that the record or facts does not warrant the
framing of a charge or charges or investigation, as it would be a futile
F exercise, and retransmit the record to the Speaker in terms of the Act and
the Rules. Framing of charges is thus the foundation for investigation. By
necessary implication it excludes the adaptation of inquisitorial process. If
the committee finds prima facie case it would be open to it to frame definite
charge/charges and would ensue follow up action. The power under
G Sec.3(5) is to summon the original record from proper custody or any
record in support of the charges and sought to be relied on or witnesses to
prove the charges and given an opportunity to the Advocate and the Judge
to examine their witnesses to prove/disprove the respective case. By necessary
deduction it is not a condition precedent to follow inquisitorial procedure
H as an initail step and thereafter to have adversarial enquiry. The power of
K.SWAMI V. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY,J.] 97
the Committee to summon the record is to supplement the material placed A
before the Speaker/Chairman by original record or other necessary
evidence/witness but not to supplant any new material unrelatable to the
grounds in motion or charges framed. The witnesses summoned or ex-
amined on commission are to prove as a fact the charges made against the
Judge. The investigative power· granted to the administrative agencies B
normally is inquisitorial in nature but the Act devised a special media or
modus keeping the judicial independence beyond the ken of coloured
visions and entrusted the power or" investigation only to High Power
Judicial Committee consisting of a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, a
sitting Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished Jurist, in one word
a high "Judicial authority". The proceedings before the Committee is C
neither civil nor criminal but sui generis.
The appointment of the advocate at the behest of the Speaker/Chair-
man was to prove the charged misbehaviour/incapacity against the Judge.
He presumptively acts on behalf of the speaker like a counsel for the D
plaintiff without any hold or control by the Speaker and would assist the
Committee as an independent agent. The Committee while making inves-
tigation does not act like. a prosecutor nor itself would lead evidence
against the Judge but acts akin to a Civil Court. The Speaker/Chairman
also has no say or away during investigation into the alleged misbehaviour
of the Judge. The Committee has only statutory duty to submit to the E
speaker its reports and the evidence at the conclusion of the investigation.
The investigation done by the Cummittee, thus is t'l find whether the
alleged misbehaviour/incapacity has been proved. Undoubtedly, the public
law litigation often contradicts the premise behind those of private law. In F
public law wider public interest it involved over and beyond he contending
parties. It concerns the future and private law litigation is retrospective in
operation. Prof. Wade in his Administrative Law, 5th Edn. at p.803 has
stated that:
"It is fundamental that the procedure before a tribunal, G.
like that in a Court of law, should be adversary and not
inquisitorial. The tribunal should have both sides of the
case presented \o it and should judge between them,
without itself having to conduct an inquiry of its own
motion, enter into the controversy and call-evidence for H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A or against either party. If it allows itself to become in-
volved in the investigation and argument, parties will
quickly lose confidence in its impartiality, however fair
minded it may in fact be."
The word 'investigate' was defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
B Edition, at p.825 thus :
"fo follow up step by step by patient inquiry or observa-
tion. To trace or track; to search into; to examine and
inquire into with care and accuracy; tn fmd out by careful
C inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a legal
inquiry."
The word 'investigation' was defined at p.825 thus :
'The process of inquiring into or tracking down through
D inquiry.'
The word 'proof was defined at p.121.5 thus :
"The effect of evidence; the establishment of a fact by
evidence. Any fact or circumstance which leads the mind
E to the affirmative or negative of any proposition. The
conviction or persuation of the mind of a judge or jury,
by the exhibition of evidence, of the reality of a fact
alleged. The establishment by e\idence ·of a requisite
degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier
F of fact or the court ....... .
Proof is the result or effect of evidence, while evidence is
the medium or means by which a fact is proved or dis-
proved, but the words "proor and "evidence" may be used
interchangeably. Proof is the perfection of evidence; for
G without evidecne there is no proof, although there may be
evidence which does not amount to proof; for example, if
a man is found murdered at a spot where another has
been seen walking but a short time before, this fact will
be evidence to show that the latter was the murderer, but,
H standing alone, will be very far from proof of it."
K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 99
The Committee as Judicial authority adopts the procedure of a trial A
of a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure; It is not inquisitorial but
adversary to search for the truth or falsity of the charge/charges by taking
evidence during the investigation like a trial of a civil suit aod it should be
the duty of the Advocate aod the Learned Judge, or his counsel to
prove/disprove if burden of proof rests on the Judge, as a fact by adduction B
of evidence or the affirmation or negation or disproof of the imputation
under investigation. The word 'investigation' is to discover aod collect the
evidence to prove the charge as a fact or disproved. The Evidence Act
defined the words "proved" aod "disprove" as when after considering the
matters before it, the court either believes the fact to exist or not to exist
or its existence is so probable/non-existence is probable aod the test of C
acceptaoce or non acceptaoce by a prudent mao placed in the circurnstao-
ces of a particular case was adopted. The Consideration of the evidence is
like a criminal case as the finding would be 'guilty' or 'non-guilty' of
misbehaviour under section 6 of the Act. The test of proof is "proof beyond
reasonable doubt". The words investigation aod inquiry used in Art. 124(5), D
the Act aod the Rules are interchaogeable aod do not take different colours
from Varied contexts but connote the same theme to prove/disprove mis-
behaviour or incapacity charged against the Judge beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem could be broached through a different perspective as
well. In normal parlaoce, in a criminal case, investigation connotes dis- E
covery aod collection of evidence before charge-sheet is filed aod based
thereon definite charges are framed. Enquiry by a Magistrate is stopped
when the trial begins. The trial is a culminating process to convict or acquit
an accused. In Service Jurisprudence, departmental enquiry against a
delinquent employee, bears similar insignia to impose penalty. At the F
investigation stage the accused or the charged officer has no say in say in
the matter nor is he entitled to aoy opportunity. The disciplinary authority
or enquiry officer, if appointed, on finding that the evidence discloses
prima facie ground to proceed against the delinquent officer, the enquiry
would be conducted. The cirminal court frames charges after supplying the
record of investigation relied on. Equally, the disciplinary authority/inquiry G
officer would frame definite charge or charges aod would communicate the
same together with a statement of the facts in support thereof sought to be
relied on and would call upon the delinquent officer to submit his
explaoation or written statement of defence etc. At the trial/enquiry the
person is entitled to reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The higher H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A judiciary holds the office of constitutional responsibility and is a constitu-
tional functionary. His conduct is not subject to any discussion, under Art.
121 on the floor of Parliament. Therefore, no-one is entitled even to act as
plain clothes spy to pry into his/their conduct to set rumours afloat. If it
would be otherwise, the disgruntled would concoct stories, crow into the
ears and pass on as palpably palatable truth either to deter or demoralise
B an upright, indomitable and unarnenaole Judge. When definite material or
evidence was placed before the Speaker of the House of the People or
Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker/Chairman, on due satisfaction
as stated hereinbefore, that the ground/grounds needs investigation, would
admit the motion and transmii the record to the Commiltee i.e. high
c Judicial authority for investigation into the alleged misbehaviour. The
investigation contemplated in Art. 124(4) of the Constitution or investiga-
tion or inquiry envisaged in the Act are synonymous and interchangeable,
as has rightly been contended by Sri Nariman.
D The behavioural discipline of a Judge is an integral component of
judicial independence. Admission of the motion is a statutory fon~ign.
Investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge though integral
part of composite scheme to remove an erring Judge though political
process, the proceedings before the Committee is purely judicial with all
its indicia as the C.P.C. was eicpressly made applicable. The Constitution,
E
the Act and the rules aimed to discipline the discipled when gone astray
so as to establish the supermacy of law so that the pure flames of public
administration of justice are always burning bright and aloft. Thereby it
would balance the competing interests of independence of the judiciary
and accountability. The maRers of the Act after a great deal of delibera-
F tions made an admixture or amalgam of political and judicial process to
remove an erring Judge atune to the constitutional creed and left the
choice to the high judicial authority to adopt its own procedure to inves-
tigate into the charges of misbeha\iour while adhering to the scheme of the
Act, the Rules and fair play. The removal of a Judge is paved by a judicial
G verdict after following fair and just procedure. It is, therefore, most effica-
cious, most salutary and the best mode in vogue in the world's democratic
countries to uphold independence of the judiciary. Thus it must be held
that the Act and the Rules provided built-in fair procedure to prove the
alleged misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge. It is akin to adversarial and
H trial of a civil suit and the Committee acts as an independent "Judicial
K.SWAMlv. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 101
statutory authority" The provisions are consistent with Articles 124(4), 14 and A
21 of the Constitution of India and they are not ultra vires of the constitution.
The contention of Sri Altemeas Rein that since the learned Judge,
on his elevation as a Judge of the Supreme Court, had vacated his office
as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the alleged
misbehaviour, if any, would cease to be relevant and that his conduct, i.e. B
his misbehaviour as a Judge of the Supreme Court alone would be subject
matter of the motion and investigation, would stand to no minute scrutiny.
Undoubtedly, by operation of Article 217 (C) of the Constitution, the
learned Judge had vacated the office as Chief Justice of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court on October 6, 1989, the day on which he assumed the C
officer as a Judge of the Supreme Court. What is relevant is his behaviour
as a Judge while discharging the duties of the office of the Judge, i.e. Chief
Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. What is pertinent in a
motion for removal of the Judge in his/her misbehaviour of incapacity. For
the efficacy of the judicial adjudication and peoples faith in the rule of law, D
people must have absolute faith and confidence in the honesty, integrity,
impartiality, courage, and independence, of the Judge. So, upright and
resolute conduct of the presiding Judges of the Court is imperative. If that
faith and confidence is in any way shaken or shattered, the legitimacy of
the very system of Govt. is tainted and the consequences will be dis-
asterous. So long as one holds the judicial office, the above conduct E
remains germane and relevant. Any imputation of misbehaviour through a
valid motion admitted by the Speaker needs investigation. The elevation of
a High Court Judge to the Supreme Court is only an elongation of the
judicial functions in the apex court with the same judicial fervour. From
this perspective, the alleged misbehaviour of the learned Judge, if proved, F
would remain germane, even while the learned Judge is a Judge of this
Court. It would thus not be difficult to discount the contention of the
learned Advocate as of no substance.
The meaning of the word 'misbehaviour' in Article 124(4) of the
Constitution is the crux of the question. Before embarking into the ques- G
lion, it is necessary to gaze the founding father's animation and anxiety to
wean .away or ward off or disabuse the executive mind of the judges of the
constitutional court in judicial review. Article 124(2) of the Constitution
fJXes their tenure. Article 125 read with Schedule II guarantees him/her
undiminished salary, privileges and perks prevalent on the date of assump- H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A tion of office as a Judge and during the tenure. Article 124( 4) assures
11
irremovability from office, except for "proved misbehaviour or incapacity
in accordance with the procedure therein, the Act and the Rules. Articles
121 then lifts the rigour of the total ban of public discussion against the
conduct of the Judge only when the finding of proved misbehaviour or
B incapacity was recorded by the Committee; the report together with the
evidence, the source material for discussion, was laid on the floor of each
House of Parliament under Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 9(5) of the
Rules and discussion was initiated, that too of the concerned Judge. The
process for removal of the Judge had initiation from statutory process but
C finding of "proved misbehaviour" was recorded by Judicial process and final
act of removai by the President was after an address on the floor of each
House of Parliame.nt as political process determined by majority resolution
as enjoined by Art.124(4) of the Constitution. Obviously, Article 121 ac-
cords to the members of the Parliament full freedom to discuss the conduct
of the Judge vis-a-vis proved misbehaviour and may concur with the
D committee or vote down the motion i.e. the presumptive finding is that the
charge is deemed to have been proved or disproved under section 6(3) or
even if proved facts do not warrant removal of the Judge. Otherwise, there
is a total ban on the discussion of the conduct of any Judge/Judges in the
discharge of his/their duties. Resolution passed by majority in the manner
E laid by Art.124(4) is the foundation for the President to pass an order
removing the Judge from his office.
The underlying insulation and imperviousness is to secure judicial
independence to the Judge to do that should be just, equitous, fair or fit
F for a Judge to do. The reason is that the Judg~ is to make judicial review
not only between citizen and citizen but also between the Executive
Authority and the citizen or the States inter se. or the Centre and the State.
When the right of a citizen is attacked from any quarter or his claim is
denied or is wrong, the judiciary alone should punish the wrong doer or
restore the violated right or redress the legal injury. Stronger weapon in
G the armoury of judiciary is the confidence it commands and faith it inspires
and generates in the public in its capacity to do even _handed justice and
keep the scales in balance in any dispute. The judiciary is thus the cus-
tpdian and guardian of the rights of the citizen. It should, therefore, be
independent, impartial an incorruptible. He/She should have the courage,
H uprightness and conviction to do his/her duty in terms of the oath.
!<.SWAMI V. U.O.l. [RAMASWAMY,J.] 103
It could be pondered over in tune with constitutional philosophy. A
Judicial review is the touchstone and repository of the supreme law of the
land. Rule of law as basic feature permeates the entire constitutional
structure. Independence of the judiciary is sine quo non for the efficacy of
the rule of law. This court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the
Constitution and the law. It has to maintain the delicate balancing wheel B
of the whole constitutional system keeping the Executive and the Legisla-
ture within the confines of their power and jurisdiction and also check their
excesses and declare ultra vires their powers and actions while keeping a
self-check. The independence of the judiciary in the scheme is essential to
establish real parliamentary democracy and maintenance of rule of law to C
usher in an egalitarian social order, removing the existing imbalances,
social and economic inequalities, assuring liberty, equality, .fraternity and
to further justice - social, economic and political with dignity of the persons
and fraternity to integrate Bharat. Independence of judiciary thus con-
stitutes the cornerstone and the foundation on which om democratic polity
itself is to rest and work on sound principles. D
To keep the stream of justice clean and pure, the judge must be
endowed with sterling character, impeccable integrity and upright be-
haviour. Erosion thereof would undermine the efficacy of the rule of law
and the working of the Constitution itself. The Judges of higher echelons, E
therefore, should not be mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles,
human failings and weak character which may be found in those in other
walks of life. The judges of higher judiciary should be men of fighting faith
with tough fibre not susceptible to any pressure, economic, political or any
sort. The actual as well as the apparent independence of judiciary would
F
be transparent only when the office holders endow those qualities which
would operate as impregnable fortress against surreptitious attempts to
undermine the independence of the judiciary. In short the behaviour of the
Judge is the bastion for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy,
liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law.
G
From this constitutional orientation, let us plough the seeds or roots
of causation of "misbehaviour" in Article 124(4). The Constitution or the
Act, obviously, gave no definition of misbehaviour. In Corpus Juris Secun-
dum 1 Volume 58, the word !!Misbehaviour" was defined as conduct,
improper or unlawful behaviour. It has been held to be synonymous with H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A misconduct. The words and phrases as judicially defined in Volume 3,
11
Misbehaviour" has been defined as "outrageous or improper conduct 11 •
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Editiion, p.998, defined 'misbehaviour' as
"ill conduct, improper or unlawful behaviour". 'Misconduct' was defined at
p.999 as "A transgression of some established and definite rule of action,
B a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in
character, improper or wrong behaviour; its synonymS are m~sdemeanor,
misdeed, misbehaviour, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, of-·
fence, but not negligence or carelessness. 'Misconduct in office' was
defined as "Any unlawful behaviour by a public office in relation to the
c duties of his office, wilful in character. Term embraces acts which the office
holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to
act in the face of an affirmative duty to act".
In Encylopedic Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, at p.720 'misbehaviour'
D was defined as "improper or unlawful conduct, generally applied to a
breach of duty or propriety by an officer, witness, etc. not amounting to a
crime. P. Ramanathan Aiyar's 'The Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition, 1987
defines 'misbehaviour' at p. 820 as "ill conduct; improper or unlawful
behaviour." 'Misconduct' was defined at p.821 as "the term "misconduct"
E implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgment. Miscon-
duct is not necessarily the same thing as conduct involving moral tur-
pitude". The word 'misconduct' is a relative term, and has to be construed
with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein the term
occurs, having regarc! to the scope of the Act or statute whlch is being
construed. 'Misconduct' literally means wrong conduct or improper con-
F duct". 'Misconduct in office' was defined as "unlawful behaviour or neglect
by a public officer, by whlch the rights of a party have been affected".
Every act or conduct or even error of judgment or negligent acts by
higher judiciary per se does not amount to misbehaviour. Wilful abuse of
G judicial office, wilful misconduct in the office, corruption, lack of integrity,
or any other offence involving moral turpitude would be misbehaviour.
Misconduct implies actuation of some degree of mense rea by the doer.
Judicial finding of guilt of grave crime is misconduct. Persistent failure to
perform the judicial duties of the judge or wilful abuse of the office dolus
H mains would be misbehaviour. Misbehaviour would extend to conduct of
K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY,J.] 105
the Judge in or beyond the execution of judicial office. Even administrative A
actions or omissions too need accompaniment of mense rea. The holder of
the office of the judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court should,
therefore, be above the conduct of ordinary mortals in the society. The
standards of judicial behaviour both on and off the Bench are normally
high. The falling moral or ethical standards in the society are no ruse nor B
refuse to slacken the higher standards of judicial conduct. The society,
therefore, is entitled to expect higher degree of propriety and probity in
the judicial conduct from higher judiciary. There cannot be any fixed or
set principles, but an unwritten code of conduct of well established tradi-
tions are the guidelines for judicial conduct. The conduct that tends to
undermine the public confidence in the character, integrity and impartiality
c
of the judge must be eschewed. It is expected of him to voluntarily setting
forth wholesome standards of conduct reaffirmi~g fitness to higher respon-
sibilities. Even the private life of a judge must adhere to standards of
probity and propriety, acceptable to others. They alone would receive
confidence and respect from the public. This legal setting would furnish D
the foundation to focus the question whether the learned Judge had
committed financial improprieties or irregularities undermining the above
standards in his adminisirative disposition and whether the same would
constitute misbehaviour is to be angulated the findings given from the
proven evidence by the Committee. Such finding of proved misbehaviour E
would undoubtedly be subject to requisite majority voting and when voted
would become "deemed proof under sec. 6(3)" for removal under Art.
124{4). Then alone can the finding of proved misbehaviour be deemed
accepted and would become final. If the motion is voted down, by neces-
sary implication, the finding of the committee stands disproved and F
rejected.
We are alive to the fact that declaration of law would be laid only to
apply it to the facts of the case on hand for or not granting the relief. The
facts of the case !'resented an extra-ordinary scenerio. The Constitution or
the Act did not define 'misbehaviour'. Several International forums hr G
judicial independence suggested to define misbehaviour but to no avail. No
legislature in any democratic country attempted to do so as it would appear
to be diffictilt to give a cOmprehensive definition to meet myraid situations.
The scope of judicial review after the committee records findings that the
H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 119921SUPP.1 S.C.R.
A misbehaviour has been proved would appear to be fraught with im-
ponderables. The occasion for judicial review would scarcely arise. There
are no set rules of conduct. The law laid by this court under Article 141
of the Constitution is the law of the land. Under these diverse circumstan-
tial constraints I undertook to survey and declare the law and left if for its
B application by the Committee to the proved facts.
Though Sri Sibal attempted to argue on merits, on the grounds of
violation of the principles of natural justice for non-supply of needed
documents etc., I refrain to go into the diverse questions. Firstly, the reliefs
C sought are personal in nature to the learned Judge. He alone should seek
and non else be permitted to assail. In a proceeding of this or the like or
of departmental enquiry or in criminal matter. no one except the person
aggrieved is entitled to ventilate the grievances regarding the legality,
propriety, correctness or otherwise of the charges, the procedure the
Committee adopted or the findings recorded therein. If the law permits
D suo motu or inherent exercise of power and the facts warrant exercise of
the power, it would be open to the court/tribunal in an appropriate case,
to do public justice to correct the same. Secondly, investigation has since
been completed and the report is ready, I am sure the learned members
with their rich and variagated experience, must have subjected the evidence
E to the same standard of consideration and reached at their findings. Even
if otherwise a fresh look in this light, if need be, may not be surplusage but
assuages an reassurance of the confidence. So it is for the Committee to
look into and if need be afresh. This court cannot trench into that area. If
the findings are positive they would be subject to political process of
F discussion on the floor of each House of Parliament and resolution per
majority.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent of the above
declaration and we direct the Registrar General to address a letter to the
G Committee with a request to exclude the entire adverse evidence or record
against the learned Judge placed either by Mis George Fernandoz, Jaswant
Singh or the Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability, except the one part
of the record sent by the Speaker. In other respects, subject to the above
declaration of law the writ petition stand dismissed. But in the circumstan-
H ces, without costs.
K.SWAM!v. U.0.l.[RAMASWAMY.J.] 107
WRIT PETITION (C) No. 140 OF 1992 A
I am in complete agreement with my learned brother Verma, J. in.
his consideration of the writ petition of the petitioner. Therefore, there is
nothing useful for me to add. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but
without costs.
B
ORDER
This Writ Petition is dismissed m accordance with the majority
opinion.
T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "judicial removal"Sign in to search