JUDGMENT

B.C. RAY, J. (for himself and on behalf of M. N. Venkatachaliab, J. S. Verma and S. C. Agrawal, JJ.) (Majority view):- These writ petitions raise certain constitutional issues of quite some importance bearing on the construction of Arts. 121 and 124 of the Constitution of India and of the "The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968" even as they in the context in which they are brought, are somewhat unfortunate.

Notice was given by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha, the term of which came to an end upon its dissolution, of a Motion for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of this Court. On 12th March, 1991, the Motion was admitted by the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting of Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P. D. Desai Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, and Mr. Justice O. Chinappa Reddy, a distinguished jurist in terms of S.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

The occasion for such controversy as is raised in these proceedings is the refusal of the Union Government to act in aid of the decision of the Speaker and to decline to notify that the services of the two sitting Judges on the Committee would be treated as "actual-service" within the meaning of Para 11(B)(i) of Part D of the II Schedule to the Constitution. It is said that without such a notification the two sitting Judges cannot take time off from their Court-work. The Union Government seeks to justify its stand on its understanding that both the motion given notice of by the 108 Members of the Lok Sabha for presenting an Address to the President for the removal of the Judge concerned as well as the decision of the Speaker of the 9th Lok Sabha to admit the motion and constitute a Committee under the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act have lapsed with the dissolution of the 9th Lok Sabha.

Constitutional issues of some importance, therefore, arise as to the constitutional and the legal position and status of a motion for the removal of a Judge under a law made pursuant to Article 124(5) of the Constitution and as to whether the doctrine of lapse would apply to such a motion upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and whether, in view of the contention that such motions for removal, impeachment etc. of holders of high constitutional offices are in their very nature politically introduced, debated and decided in the Houses of Parliament and not elsewhere, the matters arising out of or relating to a motion for removal of a Judge in either House of the Parliament are at all justiciable before Courts of law. It is also urged that even if these issues have some degree of adjudicative disposition and involve some justiciable areas, the Court could decline to exercise jurisdiction as its decision and its writ might become infructuous in view of the fact that in the ultimate analysis, the final arbiter whether at all any address is to be presented rests exclusively with the Houses of Parliament and which, are wholly outside the purview of the Courts.

2. The foregoing services to indicate broadly the complexities of the constitutional issues on which the court is invited to pronounce and, as in all constitutional litigation, the views inevitably tend to reflect a range of policy options in constitutional adjudications and, in some measure, value judgments.

3. Writ Petition No. 491 of 1991 is by a body called the "Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability" represented by its convener, Sri Hardev Singh, a Senior Advocate of this Court. Petitioner-body claims to be a Sub Committee constituted by an "All India Convention on Judicial Accountability" ,to carry forward the task of implementing the resolutions of the conventions. Writ Petition No. 541 of 1991 is by the SC Bar Association represented by its Honorary Secretary. The Bar Association seeks to prosecute this petition "in the larger public interest and in particular in the interests of litigant pu