SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 379

2012 (3) Supreme 641
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(B.S. Chauhan & Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.)
Common Cause — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 35 of 2012
Decided on 10-05-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Reference to Supreme Court can be made only upon satisfaction of the President.

Headnote:Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 – Section 5(2) – Reference to the Supreme Court for holding an enquiry can be made only upon satisfaction of the President of India – Competent authority requested to take a decision – President of India may also proceed u/s 5(2). (Paras 6 and 7)

        W.P. (C) No. 60 of 2011 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        This case relates to enquiry against Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, ex-Chief Justice of India, under Section 5 of the 1993 Act.

       Finding of the Court:

        Mandamus cannot be issued for making a reference to the Supreme Court.

       

JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.-Through the instant Writ Petition filed by Common Cause invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it is brought out, that there are extensive allegations against the present Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”), which require to be enquired into. It is submitted, that under the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “1993 Act”), the authority to initiate an enquiry into the matter, is vested with the President of India. It is accordingly pointed out, that a communication dated 4.4.2011 was addressed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, to the President of India, requesting her to make a reference to the Supreme Court for holding an enquiry, to probe the allegations levelled against Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, ex-Chief Justice of India, under Section 5 of the 1993 Act.

2. It is pointed out, that even though a period of more than one year has lapsed since the aforesaid communication was addressed to the President of India and the Prime Minister of India, the petitioner has neither received a response to the communication dated 4.4.2011, nor has a reference been made by the President of India to the Supreme Court under Section 5 of the 1993 Act.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a newspaper report, which had appeared in the Economic Times dated 22.6.2011, containing allegations against three relatives of Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan. It is submitted, that two sons- in-law and a brother of the present incumbent of the Office of Chairman of the Commission, were blamed for having assets beyond their known sources of income. Reference was also made to the communication dated 4.4.2011 addressed by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms to the President of India, where allegations were levelled against the Chairman of the Commission under five heads. Firstly, for owning benami properties in the names of his daughters, sons-in-law and brother; secondly, for getting allotted benami properties from the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in the name of his former-aide M. Kannabiran ; thirdly, for approving evasive and false replies to an application under the Right to Information Act filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, relating to declaration of assets by Judges of this Court ; fourthly, resisting attempts to stop the elevation of Justice P.D. Dinakaran to the Supreme Court of India, despite allegations of land-grab, encroachment and possessing assets beyond his known sources of income; and lastly, suppressing a letter written by a Judge of the High Court of Madras, alleging that a former Union Minister (A. Raja) had tried to interfere in his judicial functioning. Based on the aforesaid allegations, it was sought to be concluded, that Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, the present incumbent of the Office of Chairman of the Commission, has been guilty of several acts of serious misbehaviour. It was accordingly the claim of the petitioner, that a reference be made for an enquiry into the aforesaid alleged acts of misbehaviour at the hands of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, to the Supreme Court under Section 5 of the 1993 Act.

4. Section 5 of the 1993 Act is being extracted hereinbelow:-

“5. Resignation and removal of Chairperson and Members

(1) The Chairperson or any Member may, by notice in writing under his hand addressed to the President of India, resign his office.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Chairperson or any Member shall only be removed from his office by order of the President of India on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on reference being made to it by the President, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf by the Supreme Court, reported that the Chairperson or the Mem












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top