New Delhi / Hyderabad: India’s preeminent jurist Soli Sorabjee hailed Vice-President M. Venkaiah Naidu’s decision rejecting the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra submitted by seven political parties on Monday, saying that Mr Naidu has “rightly applied his mind and took this decision after consulting experts”.
Eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman too sided with him, saying the issues raised in the impeachment notice were not of “sufficient gravity and rightly rejected” by Venkaiah Naidu.
Mr Nariman said the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was the only statutory authority to take the decision on the notice. He pointed out faults in the impeachment notice, saying, it has to have “something that is far more important than just saying he did not do this or that”. This order, however, can be challenged in court, he said.
Legal experts says the question of examination charges on merit would arise only after Constitution of the three men committee in accordance with the Constitution and as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969.
K.T. Tulsi, senior advocate of the Supreme Court and member of the Rajya Sabha opined that the Vice President, as ex-officio Chairman of the Upper House, has to only consider whether the motion is valid or not at this stage.
Prashanth Bhushan, senior lawyer, Supreme Court, said, “The Vice-President has no power to say that charges are not made out. That is for an inquiry committee of three judges. He only has to see if it is signed by 50 MPs and, possibly, if charges are of misbehaviour.”
Senior advocate Ashok Bhan argued that the Vice President ought not to have rejected the motion at the initial stage. The only thing the VP can look into at the admission stage is whether those signed are MPs and there are adequate numbers for the motion and process it. He cannot go into the merits of the allegations, as it is not his domain, as it should be established only after a proper enquiry.
Experts differ with Venkaiah decision
Legal experts say the question of examination of charges on merit would arise only after constitution of the committee in accordance with the law.
K.T. Tulsi, senior advocate of the Supreme Court and member of the Rajya Sabha opined that the vice- president, as ex-officio Chairman of the Upper House, has to only consider whether the motion is valid or not at this stage.
Prashant Bhushan, senior lawyer, said “the vice-president has no power to say that charges are not made out. That is for an inquiry committee of three judges. He only has to see if it is signed by 50 MPs and, possibly, if charges are of misbehaviour.”
