149 of 1992 came up for hearing first before a Division Bench of three learned Judges which by its order dated 27.2.1992 on hearing Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner mentioned his companytentions and directed as under Having regard to the importance of the questions raised in the petition, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the learned Chief Justice of India for companystituting a Constitution Bench to hear this petition.
140 of 1992 for tagging with Writ Petition No.
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.
514 of 1992 praying for a direction to the Inquiry Committee to supply a companyy of its report to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami before submitting it to the Speaker under Section 4 2 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 to enable the learned Judge to seek judicial review of the finding of guilty, if any, against him made in the report of the Committee.
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 companyducting the inquiry is alleged to be based on the decision in Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability which held that the proceeding relating to inquiry companyducted by the Committee is statutory in nature subject to judicial review.
In the other writ petition W.P. No.
140 of 1992 was tagged on to Writ Petition No.
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 numberice of motion admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha and the charges framed by the Committee against Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami.
which has been disposed of by us earlier today by a separate judgment pronounced therein giving all relevant facts.
149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No.
In substance, the primary relief claimed in both these 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.
On 6.5.1992 after Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner had been heard for some time on the preliminary question relating to maintainability of the petition, he sought time to companysider further whether the petitioner should move an application for impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party.
140 of 1992 alleges that the numberice 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.
and were filed prior to Writ Petition No.
These matters were, therefore, heard on the question of maintainability indicating that in case these petitions are held to be maintainable for the reliefs claimed herein in the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party, then the matters may be heard further on merits.
Sarojini Ramswami, wife of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, filed Writ Petition No.
140 of 1992 is as under a issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing 1 the numberice of motion for presentation of an address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the 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.
Another prayer made to hold that the Inquiry Committee is disqualified to companyduct the inquiry was given up at the hearing by Shri Sibal accepting the position that the allegation of bias against the Committee companyld be examined only at the instance of Mr. Justice V. Ramswami who is number even a party in either of these two writ petitions.
It may number be mentioned that Writ Petition No.
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.
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 numberice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha.
140 also, Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami is number a party and the petitioners stand is the same and, therefore, the question of maintainability of these writ petitions for the reliefs claimed herein in the absence of the Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as party is companymon to both of them.
When the hearing companymenced before us, the question of maintainability of these writ petitions for the reliefs claimed herein in the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami and tenability of the plea of reconsideration of the earlier decision at the instance of these petitioners who were number parties thereto and are number directly affected thereby arose for companysideration.
514 of 1992 Mrs. Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India and Ors.
140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana.
Subsequently, on companyclusion of the investigation by the Inquiry Committee, Smt.
The matters were adjourned to the next day at the request of Shri Sibal.
149 of 1992 which was treated as the main matter by order dated 23.3.1992.
It is also asserted in that Writ Petition that the judgment in Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability is violative of Article 145 3 of the Constitution and hence void ab initio.
In Writ Petition No.
At request, George Fernandoz, Jaswanth Singh, SCJA and the petitioner were permitted only to assist the Advocate of the Committee to prove the case against the Judge and to keep secrecy of the facts and the proceedings.
The companystraint of time because of which the hearing in these matter was required to be companycluded early impelled us to adopt this companyrse, particularly on account of the fact that 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.
On this basis, the relief sought in Writ Petition No.
149, we have heard Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner, the Attorney General of India for the Union of India and Shri F.S. Nariman for the Inquiry Committee.
In Writ Petition No.
149 of 1992 to be heard along with Writ Petition No.
S. Verma, J. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this companymon judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points.
In Writ Petition No.
Petitioner Raj Kanwar in Writ Petition No.
This is how this petition came to be listed before a Constitution Bench for being heard by us.
The order in Writ Petition No.
149 of 1992 was made thereafter on 23.3.1992 because of the identity of subject matter of the two petitions.
