http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SUB-COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/05/1991

BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J) VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR 1598            1991 SCR  (2) 741  1991 SCC  (3)  65        1991 SCALE  (1)902  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1992 SC2219  (122)

ACT:      Constitution of India, 1950/Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Article   124(5)-Enquiry  into  allegations  of   misconduct against  a  sitting  Judge of Supreme  Court  pertaining  to conduct  as  Chief  Justice of a High  Court-Action  of  the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in admitting a notice by Members of Parliament  and constituting an  Inquiry  Committee-Validity and implementation of-Application for interlocutory  relief- Court directing expeditious hearing of main case.

HEADNOTE:      A  Writ Petition filed by the  Petitioner-Committee,  a body  of Advocates, praying for directions to be  issued  to the  Union  government and the Chief Justice  of  India,  in connection  with the enquiry into allegation  of  misconduct made   against  a  sitting  Judge  of  the  Supreme   Court, pertaining to his conduct as Chief Justice of a High  Court, raised   certain   questions   as  to   the   validity   and implementation of the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in  admitting  a notice of motion moved by  the  Members  of Parliament  under  Article  124(5) of  the  Constitution  of India, 1950 read with Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.      Some  intervention  applications,  opposing  the   Writ Petition,  and  some  other  Writ  Petitions  more  of  less endorsing the Government’s stand raising the question as  to whether  the motion in question survived the dissolution  of the Lok Sabha or not, were also filed.      Praying for interim direction, which was identical with the prayer in main Writ Petition, it was urged on behalf  of the Petitioner-Committee that having regard to the dire need of maintaining public confidence in the institution and  its reputation  as  apex  Court,  it  was  necessary  that   the concerned  Judge  should abstain from  discharging  judicial functions  during  the  pendnecy  of  the  enquiry,  and   a direction should be issued accordingly, or pending  disposal of  the  Writ  Petition,  the  Union  Government  should  be directed to afford all necessary facilities to the Committee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

for smooth and efficient functioning.      Directing expeditious hearing of the Writ Petition  and connected matters, this Court,                                                        742      HELD: 1.1 Having regard to the nature and importance of the issues involved, it is appropriate that the main  matter along  with  the  connected  writ  petitions  is  heard   as expeditiously  as possible. Accordingly, this matter  should be  listed  on  July  9, 1991 and  hearing  of  the  matters proceeded with day-to-day until conclusion. [744D]      1.2  In  the circumstances, it is  not  appropriate  to embark  upon an examination of the prayer for  interlocutory relief.   However, the Court’s disinclination to  issue  any interlocutory  orders at this stage should not be  construed as  an  expression of opinion on the merits  of  the  issues either way and as an interdiction of the functioning of  the Committee, if the Committee otherwise considers  appropriate to proceed with the matter. [744E-F]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. No. 1 of 1991.                          IN      Writ Petition No. 491 of 1991.                          WITH      Writ Petition Nos. 541 & 560 of 1991 etc.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      G.  Ramaswamy, Attorney General, Shanti Bhushan,  Ashok Desai,  Hardev  Singh,  Ms.  Indira  Jaisingh,  P.S.   Poti, Rajinder Sachhar, M.K. Ramamurty, R.K. Garg, S.K. Garg, S.K. Dholakia,  Santosh  Hedge,  V.N. Ganpule,  Tapas  Ray,  N.B. Shetye,  P.P. Rao, Kapil Sibal, D.S. Tewatia,  Hari  Swarup, Jayant,   Jayant  Bhushan,  Prashant  Bhushan,  Ms.   Madhoo Moolchandani,  Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, A.K.  Srivastava,  E.M.S. Anam,  N.D. Garg, A.M. Khanwilkar and Ms. A. Subhashini  for the Appearing Parties.      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      This  writ  petition is by a body of  advocates  styled "Sub-Committee   on  Judicial  Accountability"  and   raises certain  questions as to the validity and implementation  of the  action  of  the Speaker of the Lok  Sabha  admitting  a notice  of motion moved by 108 Members of  Parliament  under Article  124(5)read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968  and constituting  an Inquiry Committee consisting of a Judge  of the  Supreme  Court,  Chief Justice of a High  Court  and  a jurist  to  investigate into the allegations  of  misconduct made against a sitting                                                        743 Judge of the Supreme Court pertaining to his conduct as  the erstwhile  Chief  Justice  of the Punjab  and  Haryana  High Court.      The  main  prayers in the writ petition  are  that  the Union  Government  be directed to afford facilities  to  the Inquiry  Committee  to  discharge  its  constitutional   and statutory functions; and for directions to the Hon’ble Chief Justice  of  India to abstain from allocating  any  judicial work  to  the  concerned Judge during the  pendency  of  the proceedings  before the Committee.  In regard to the  latter prayer that notice should go to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, we think that aspect of the matter should be deferred for  the present and considered at the appropriate stage  of the final hearing.  In regard to the directions to the Union Government,  the Union Government by means of  an  affidavit subscribed  to by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of  Law  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Justice,  has made manifest its stand that in its  view  the motion  initiated by the 108 Members of Parliament on  which the Speaker took the decision to constitute a Committee  had lapsed  with  the  dissolution of the  Lok  Sabha  and  that nothing further remains to be done in the matter.  It is  in that view, as averred in the affidavit, that the  Government of  India  did  not  advise  the  President  to  issue   any notification as required by Para 9 read with Para  11(b)(i), Part  D of Second Schedule to the Constitution enabling  the sitting  Judge of this Court and the Chief Justice  of  High Court  to  reckon the time spent by them in  functioning  as members of the Committee as part of their ‘actual  service’. The  contention of the petitioner is that having  regard  to the  constitutional and statutory of the sitting Judges  who function  in  the  Committee,  the time  spent  by  them  in performance  of such function is to be reckoned as  part  of their  ‘actual service’ as judges and no notification  under the concerned provisions by the President is necessary.      It  is  relevant  to  mention here  that  some  of  the interveners  who seek to oppose the writ petition  have,  in addition  to  their stand against the  writ  petition,  also filed individual writ petitions of their own in which,  more or  less,  they  seek  to endorse the  stand  taken  by  the Government  raising  the question as to whether  the  motion survives the dissolution of the Lok Sabha or not.      Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner made an impassioned plea that having regard to the dire need of maintaining public confidence in the apex institution and its  reputation  it is necessary that  the  concerned  Judge should  abstain from discharging judicial  functions  during the   pendency   of  the  enquiry  against  him.    In   the alternative,  it  is submitted that if a direction  to  that effect is not issued,                                                        744 it should at the least necessarily be directed that  pending disposal of the writ petition on merits, the Union of  India shall  afford  to the Committee such facilities  as  may  be necessary  for its effective and prompt  functioning.   Shri Shanti  Bhushan submitted that even if ultimately  the  writ petition fails no loss or injury would be caused to  anybody and what would have resulted would only be that the  eminent body  of  Judges  would  have  Occasion  to  look  into  the allegations  against a sitting Judge and if they  found  the allegations  to  be baseless, the concerned Judge  would  be cleared  of the imputations and cloud against  his  conduct. He  urged,  if such a direction or interim mandamus  is  not issued  it would seriously impair the image of the Court  as the  apex Court in the country and affect the confidence  of the people in the quality of justice dispensed by it.      We  have given our anxious consideration to the  matter and having regard to the nature and importance of the issues involved  it is appropriate that the main matter along  with the  connected writ petitions is heard as  expeditiously  as possible.   We, therefore, direct that his matter be  listed on July 9, 1991 with a direction that hearing of the matters be  proceeded  with day-to-day until  conclusion.   We  also indicated  that arguments on all sides should  be  completed within a period of ten working days and the learned  counsel for  all  the  parties and  interveners  should  file  their written  arguments in advance latest by July 1,  1991.   The actual hearing time to each of the counsel will be appointed at the commencement of the hearing on July 9, 1991.  In this view  of the matter, we think it appropriate not  to  embark upon an examination of the contentions in support of and the prayer for interlocutory relief.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    We,  however, make it clear that our disinclination  to issue  any interlocutory orders at this stage shall  not  be construed  as an expression of opinion on the merits of  the merits  of  the  issues either way and  shall  not  also  be construed  as  an  interdiction of the  functioning  of  the Committee  if the Committee otherwise considers  appropriate to proceed with the matter.      We also make it clear that during the pendency of these matters  before  this Court no proceeding pending  or  filed hereafter  in  any other court shall be heard or  any  order passed  therein  relating to the issues  involved  in  these matters. NVP                                     Petition dispose of.                                                        745