M. Krishna Swami vs Union of India - 1992 Supreme(SC) 1061

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1992 Supreme(SC) 1061

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, N.M. Kasliwal, K. Ramaswamy, K. Jayachandra Reddy, S.C. Agrawal, JJ.
M. Krishna Swami - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
With
Raj Kanwar, Advocate - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 149 & 140 of 1992
Decided On : 27-08-1992

Headnote:
Judges Act, 1968 - Section 3 – Constitution of India - Article 32 - Proved evidence by the Committee - Separate judgment pronounced – Claim of compensation - Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth - It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others - (1991) 4 SCC 699 - and - and were filed prior to Writ Petition Union of India & Ors., - which has been disposed of by us earlier today by a separate judgment pronounced therein giving all relevant facts – Held, No legislature in any democratic country attempted to do so as it would appear to be difficult to give a comprehensive definition to meet myriad situations. The scope of judicial review after the committee records findings that the misbehaviour has been proved would appear to be fraught with imponderables. The occasion for judicial review would scarcely arise. There are no set rules of conduct. The law laid by this court under Article 141 of the Constitution is the law of the land. Under these diverse circumstantial constraints I undertook to survey and declare the law and left it for its application by the committee to the proved facts - Though attempted to argue on merits, on the grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice for non-supply of needed documents etc., I refrain to go into the diverse questions. Firstly, the reliefs sought are personal in nature to the learned Judge. He alone should seek and none else be permitted to assail. In a proceeding of this or the like or of departmental enquiry or a criminal matters no one except the person aggrieved is entitled to ventilate the grievances regarding the legality, propriety, correctness or otherwise of the charges, the procedure the Committee adopted or the findings recorded therein. If the law permits inherent exercise of power and the facts warrant exercise of the power, it would be open to the court/tribunal in an appropriate case, to do public justice, may correct the same. Secondly, investigation since been completed and the report is ready, I am sure the learned members with their rich and variegated experience, must have subjected of consideration and reacted their findings. Even if otherwise a fresh look in this light, if need be, may not be surplusage but assuages an reassurance of the confidence. So it is for the Committee to look into and if need be afresh. This court cannot trench into that area. If the findings are positive they would be subject to political process of discussion on the floor of each House of Parliament and resolution per majority underlying insulation and pervasion is to secure judicial independence to the Judge to do that should be just fair or fit for a Judge to do - Reason is that the Judge is to make judicial review not only between citizen and citizen but also between the Executive Authority and the citizen or the State inter se or the Centre and the State. When the right of a citizen is attacked from any quarter or his claim is denied or is wronged, the judiciary alone should punish the wrong doer or restore the violated right or redress the legal injury. Stronger weapon in the armoury of judiciary is the confidence it commands and faith it inspires and generates in the public in its capacity to do even handed justice and keep the scale in balance in any dispute. The judiciary is thus the custodian and guardian of the rights of the citizen. It should, therefore, be independent, impartial and incorruptible. It should have the courage, uprightness and conviction to do his/her duty in terms of the oath - Petition is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

J.S. Verma, J.

Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana. Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others - (1991) 4 SCC 699 - and - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992 - Mrs. Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India & Ors., - which has been disposed of by us earlier today by a separate judgment pronounced therein giving all relevant facts.

2. Petitioner Raj Kanwar (in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992) alleges that notice of motion by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha, its admission by the then Speaker of Lok Sabha and constitution of the Inquiry Committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 are unconstitutional being violative of Article 124(4) of the Constitution. It is also asserted in that Writ Petition that the judgment in Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability is violative of Article 145(3) of the Constitution and hence void ab- initio. On this basis, the relief sought in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992 is as under :-

(1) the notice of motion for presentation of an address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of Supreme Court of India;

(2) its admission by the then Speaker of Lok Sabha; and

(3) the formation of the Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 as being void ab-initio."

3. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami claims sufficient interest to file the writ petition as a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha and as an advocate of Madras Known to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami for long. In this petition, it is alleged that certain illegalities in the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee prejudicial to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami have rendered the inquiry invalid. On the basis of the illegalities in procedure, alleged in the petition, the relief sought is for quashing the proceedings of the Committee as invalid. This is the alternative prayer in the petition while the primary relief claimed in the petition is substantially the same as in the other petition to quash the notice of motion admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha and the charges framed by the Committee against Mr Justice V. Ramaswami. Another prayer made to hold that the Inquiry Committee is disqualified to conduct the inquiry was given up at the hearing by Shri Sibal accepting the position that the allegation of bias against the Committee could be examined only at the instance of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami who is not even a party in either of these writ petitions. In substance, the primary relief claimed in both these two writ petitions is for reconsideration of the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and for accepting the view expressly rejected in the majority opinion therein. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the alternative prayer for quashing the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee on the ground of illegality in the procedure adopted by it for conducting the inquiry is alleged to be based on the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability which held that the proceeding relating to inquiry conducted by the Committee is statutory in nature subject to ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 Supreme(SC) 1061

Cases Referred (4)