Back
G.S.SINGHVI, CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD
P. D. Dinakaran – Appellant
Versus
Judges Inquiry Committee – Respondent
What is the scope of a committee's power to frame charges against a judge under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968? What is the procedure for investigating allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against a judge? What are the rights of a judge facing removal proceedings regarding the supply of documents and the framing of charges?
Key Points: - The petition challenged the order of an Enquiry Committee constituted under the Judges Enquiry Act regarding the provision of documents and the Committee's jurisdiction. [1000508250001] - The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the charges framed by the Committee were not in line with the charges made by Members of Parliament. [A)] - The court also rejected the petitioner's charges of bias against a Committee member. [A)] - The petition was dismissed. [A)] - The Committee rejected the petitioner's request for supply of certain documents, stating some were unavailable and others were irrelevant or frivolous. [1000508250006] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Committee rejected the petitioner's preliminary objections to its jurisdiction and the procedure adopted for framing charges. [1000508250006] (!) - The Committee held that it is empowered to conduct preliminary investigations before framing definite charges. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Committee also held that a judge's misbehaviour can extend beyond official duties. (!) - The court found no merit in the argument that the minority opinion in a previous case should be treated as law. [1000508250019] (!) - The court held that charges framed by the Committee did not traverse beyond the scope of the allegations in the notice of motion, with a minor deviation in one charge. [1000508250021][1000508250022]
Judgment :-
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) (for short, `the Chairman') under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") rejecting the petitioner's prayer for supply of the details and documents enumerated in paragraph 4(a) to (m) of application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction of the Committee to frame certain charges.
2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. For the sake of convenient reference, the allegations contained in the notice of motion are reproduced below:
"I. Possessing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income.
II. Unlawfully securing five Housing
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
