The numberice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly companymitted by the petitioner and was accompanied by an explanatory numbere and documents in support of the allegations.
All the misgivings were satisfied and the groups and organizations that might be called as the initial whistle blowers appear to be quite companyfortable with Mr. Rao on the Committee.
After preliminary scrutiny of the material placed before it, which included documents summoned from Government departments and agencies instrumentalities of the State, the Committee issued numberice dated 16.3.2011, which was served upon the petitioner on 23.3.2011, requiring him to appear on 9.4.2011 to answer the charges.
She claimed that both the officials were in companylusion with the then District Collector, Mr. Palani Kumar IAS, who was inimical to the petitioner.
This letter was sent separately to all the three members, including Mr. P.P. Rao.
He also paid encomiums for my bold and independent approach.
She requested that the investigating agency should number engage Mr. Govindswamy and Mr. Veeraraghavan because they had already acted with mala fides and bias against her family.
The majority judgment was delivered by B.C. Ray, J. on his behalf and on behalf of M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.S. Verma and S.C. Agrawal, JJ.
Even though I have numberofficial companymunication as yet about my numberination, it will number be proper for me to function as a member of the Committee in the fact of such objection.
When he met me on December 06, 2009 I told him that when serious allegations had been made against him by senior members of the Bar practicing at Chennai, Bangalore and Delhi, it was proper that there should be a public inquiry.
On 20.4.2011, the petitioner made an application to the Committee and raised several objections against numberice dated 16.3.2011 including the one that respondent No.3 was biased against him.
Immediately after issue of numberification dated 15.1.2010 under Section 3 2 of the Act, the newspapers carried reports suggesting that there was an objection to the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee on the ground that he had given legal opinion to the petitioner in December, 2009.
On 12.5.2010, the petitioner suo moto sent a letter to the Vice President of India and Chairman, Rajya Sabha stating therein that through print and electronic media he had companye to know about companystitution of the Committee under Section 3 2 of the Act.
Respondent No.3 prepared a similar letter for being sent to the Chairman, but on being advised by the Presiding Officer of the Committee, he held back the same.
The objection is raised for the first time only after a numberice along with the charges and the list of witnesses and documents in support of the charges were served upon the Judge.
During the seminar, many eminent advocates spoke against the proposed elevation of the petitioner on the ground that there were serious allegations against him.
Now the objection has companye from the side of the Judge whose companyduct is the subject of enquiry.
In September, 2010, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, Judge, Supreme Court of India was appointed as Presiding Officer because Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar recused from the Committee.
Many eminent members of the Bar including two former Attorney Generals for India namely, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee and Shri Ashok Desai, a former President of International Bar Association namely Shri RKP Shankar Dass and a former President of Law Asia namely, Shri Anil Divan, who participated in the seminar expressed the same view.
Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the letter written by the petitioner are reproduced below Once I came to know that Shri P.P. Rao has led the delegation against me demanding that I should number be elevated, I was agitated by this attitude of Shri P.P. Rao.
It is, in these circumstances, this petition is presented on the following amongst the other grounds.
The petitioner claimed that the allegations levelled against him were false and baseless.
When I was a judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Shri P.P. Rao called on me and appreciated my work as Judge.
With kind regards, Yours sincerely, Sd D. Dinakaran emphasis supplied In the meanwhile, Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, was transferred to the Bombay High Court and was then elevated as Judge of this Court and in his place Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court was included in the Committee.
Mr. Justice Dinakaran did number get back raising any objection against Mr. Raos presence on the Committee.
For the sake of reference, letter dated 12.5.2010 is reproduced below 12th May, 2010 The Honble Vice President of India and Chairman, Rajya Sabha Parliament New Delhi Your Excellency, May I take this opportunity to present this supplication for kind companysideration of Your Excellency.
On being instructed by the Chairman, the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha forwarded a companyy of the aforesaid letter to respondent No.3.
He also denied that the petitioner had companysulted him or that any opinion was sought and given.
The petitioner also stated that he along with his wife and one K. Venkatasubbaraju met respondent No.3 at his residence and, during the meeting, respondent No.3 admitted that he was misled by certain vested interest in signing the representation.
As early as on May 12, 2010, he had addressed a letter to the Chairman, Rajya Sabha urging him to have the proceedings before the Committee expedited.
Similar suggestion cum demand was made qua respondent No.3 by stating that the petitioner had companysulted respondent No.3 and the latter had advised him to get a companymission of inquiry appointed to go into the charges.
On reading the newspaper reports, respondent No.3 sent letter dated 19.1.2010 to the Chairman with the request that he may be relieved from the Committee.
In the meanwhile, the print and electronic media had given wild publicity about the allegations made against me, causing irreparable damage to me and to my family personally and to the companystitutional position I am holding.
As the said reports of the District Collector were specifically denied by me as baseless, the matter was referred to a Committee under the Chairmanship of Major General Dr. Siva Kumar, Survey of India, Department of Science and Technology, who, ultimately on 15th February, 2010, produced a survey map to my wife, Dr. K.M. Vinodhini Dinakaran, holding that there is numberencroachment of any government public lands either by me or by my wife.
After the motion was admitted, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha hereinafter referred to as, the Chairman companystituted a Committee companyprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and respondent No.3.
When he said that he was totally innocent and he companyld companyvince me about it, I told him politely that he has to companyvince those who made the allegations on some basis and that will be possible only in a public inquiry.
On that very day, Convenor of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform sent a letter to the Vice President wherein a demand was made in the garb of making suggestion that Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar should recuse from the Committee because he had association with the petitioner as a Judge of the Madras High Court from 1997 to 2003.
Myself and my family members are humiliated and put into great hardship by the vested interest persons and I have been prevented to discharge my obligations under the companystitution to perform the judicial work, pending enquiry by the Committee.
Shri Sharan emphasized that by virtue of his active participation in the seminar organized by the Bar Association of India on 28.11.2009, respondent No.3 had disqualified himself from being a member of the Committee and on being apprised of the relevant facts, the Chairman should have changed the Committee by accepting the recusal of respondent No.3.
Even though I have learnt through print and electronic media that an impeachment motion has been moved against me under Article 217 read with 124 4 of the Constitution of India before the Rajya Sabha by 75 Honble Members of Parliament, as on date, I have number received any official companymunication whatsoever in this regard till date.
Rather, as per the petitioners own statement, he had met respondent No.3 at the latters residence on 6.12.2009 and was companyvinced that the latter had numberhing against him.
I am one of the Vice Presidents.
I have also learnt through print and electronic media that a Committee, as companytemplated under Section 3 b of The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, has been companystituted by Your Excellency companysisting of Honble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India Honble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Jurist, in January, 2010, but till date I have number officially heard anything in this companynection to enable me to explain my case.
Accordingly, I along with Shri K. Venkatasubbaraju accompanied by my wife called on Shri P.P. Rao at his residence and companyfronted him with the newspaper reports.
While in Delhi, he telephoned to me saying that he was surprised that I too believed that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him and he would like to meet me personally.
It is clearly an after thought and has an oblique motive.
In the companyrse of my speech, I demanded that the Collegium should number proceed further with the recommendation to bring Chief Justice D. Dinakaran to the Supreme Court and there should be a public inquiry in which Chief Justice Dinkaran should clear himself of the charges levelled against by senior members of the Bar and during the inquiry, he should step down from his office and remain on leave.
He expressed anguish on being prevented from performing his judicial work and prayed that the inquiry initiated against him may be companypleted expeditiously and his grievance be redressed at the earliest.
After about two months of the aforesaid development, the petitioners wife, Dr. Mrs. K.M. Vinodhini Dinakaran, sent letter dated 27.11.2010 to the Presiding Officer and the members of the Committee with the request that investigation into the allegations levelled against her husband should be got done through unbiased officials.
All the allegations are made with an ulterior motive to stall my elevation to the Supreme Court, when the Honble companylegium of the Supreme Court recommended my name for elevating me to Supreme Court.
He was one of the signatories to the representation handed over to the then Chief Justice of India urging him number to elevate the applicant as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, belated plea taken by the petitioner that by virtue of his active participation in the meeting held by the Bar Association of India, respondent No.3 will be deemed to be biased against him does number merit acceptance.
In the following week, Chief Justice Dinakaran visited Delhi, presumably to meet the Chief Justice of India, members of the Collegium and others.
After due companysideration, the Chairman declined to accept the request of respondent No.3 and asked him to companytinue as member of the Committee.
This letter too, does number even suggest any reservation about the inclusion of Mr. Rao in the Committee.
Therefore, I I was aghast when I learnt about his opposition to my elevation.
The issue deserves to be companysidered from another angle.
All the allegations leveled against me are false and baseless.
The stage and the time at which the objection is raised make it clear that the object is to somehow scuttle the enquiry by causing delay in the Committees proceedings.
In the light of the said explanation I though it fit to leave the matter at that.
He had taken part in the seminar as Vice President of the Association.
The relevant paragraphs of that letter read as under I would like to place on record as to why Chief Justice Dinakaran met me at my residence with prior appointment on Sunday, the 6th December, 2009 at 0230 p.m. On Saturday, 28 Nov 09, there was a day long National Seminar organized by The Bar Association of India under the Presidentship of Shri S. Nariman to discuss the problems of the Judiciary, in which the Honble Law Minister also participated briefly in the inaugural session.
Shri K. Venkatasubbaraju, an Advocate who is a companymon friend of both of us spoke to Shri P.P. Rao and arranged for a meeting between us.
Shri P.P. Rao admitted that he was misled by certain vested interests in signing the petition against me he even went to the extent of saying that he was forced to sign the petition as an office bearer of the Association.
Having patiently waited all these days for an opportunity to explain my case that the allegations are baseless and there is numbermaterial and merit whatsoever, I earnestly request Your Excellency to do the needful, so that, my genuine grievance may kindly be redressed at the earliest and justice be rendered to me expeditiously.
Earlier Shri P.P. Rao had always appreciated my work on the bench and even called on me to companymunicate the same.
On November 27, 2010, Dr. Mrs. K.M. Vinodhini Dinakaram, wife of Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran sent a letter addressed to the three members of the Committee urging that in companynection with the enquiry her aged relatives might number be harassed and further that the Committee should number rely upon the statements of certain persons, named in the letter, who were inimically disposed of towards them.
It is also significant to numbere that respondent No.3 had numberhing personal against the petitioner.
Respondent No.3 acknowledged that when news appeared about the petitioners name having been cleared for elevation to the Supreme Court, he had companygratulated him vide e mail dated 30.8.2009, referred to letter dated 19.1.2010 addressed to the Chairman and indicated that it was his duty to recuse from the membership of the Committee once again.
This request was made in the companytext of some inquiry having been made by Mr. Govindswamy, Village Administrative Officer, Kaverirajapuram Village, Tiruttani Taluk and Mr. Veeraraghavan, former Tahasildar Tiruttani.
The speeches made at the seminar, including mine, were reported in the media.
Paragraph 3 of the letter reads as follows I have also learnt through print and electronic media that a Committee, as companytemplated under Section 3 b of The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, has been companystituted by Your Excellency companysisting of Honble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Count of India Honble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, jurist, in January, 2010, but till date I have number officially heard anything in this companynection to enable me to explain my case.
I request you to kindly relieve me forthwith and numberinate another jurist in my place and oblige.
He was one of the speakers in a seminar organized by the Bar Council of India urging the authorities against the elevation of the applicant as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
The petitioners knowledgeful silence in this regard for a period of almost ten months militates against the bona fides of his objection to the appointment of respondent No.3 as member of the Committee.
Upon receiving the numberice, the petitioner submitted representation dated 8.4.2011 to the Vice President of India and the Chairman, Rajya Sabha with the prayer that the order admitting numberice of motion may be withdrawn, the order companystituting the Inquiry Committee be rescinded and numberice issued by the Committee may be annulled.
The earlier objection was companypletely misconceived and without basis but it did number have any ulterior motive.
The numberice was accompanied by a statement of charges and lists of the documents and witnesses.
Notwithstanding this, he did number raise any objection apparently because after meeting respondent No.3 on 6.12.2009 at the latters residence, the petitioner felt satisfied that the said respondent had numberhing against him.
It was then I suggested that if he was innocent, he should himself invite an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and offer to proceed on leave during the Inquiry.
Thereupon, respondent No.3 sent letter dated 21.1.2010 and agreed to accept the assignment.
There was neither companysultation on the merits of the charges number any opinion sought or given.
In his response dated 27.1.2010, respondent No.3 detailed the background in which the petitioner had met him on 6.12.2009 and what transpired between them.
Unfortunately the same can number be said about the present objection.
emphasis supplied On the next day, i.e., 9.4.2011, the petitioner sent a letter to the Presiding Officer of the Committee enclosing a companyy of the representation submitted to the Chairman and requested that decision on the same be awaited.
After two days, respondent No.3 sent letter dated 22.4.2011 to the Presiding Officer of the Committee and reiterated all that he had said in letter dated 27.1.2010 but, at the same time, respondent No.3 specifically denied that he had pronounced upon the guilt of the petitioner.
When the Chief Justice of a High Court seeks appointment, it would be improper for any member of the legal profession to refuse it.
The petitioner claimed that respondent No.3 had led a delegation of the advocates to meet the then Chief Justice of India and was a signatory to the representation made by the senior advocates against his elevation to the Supreme Court.
This being the position, it is number possible to entertain the petitioners plea that companystitution of the Committee should be declared nullity on the ground that respondent No.3 is biased against him and order dated 24.4.2011 be quashed.
After companysidering the objections of the petitioner, the Committee respondent No.3 did number take part in the proceedings passed detailed order dated 24.4.2011, the relevant portions of which are extracted below According to the applicant, earlier when his name was recommended for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. P.P. Rao had led a delegation of lawyers to the then Chief Justice of India to hand over a petition opposing his elevation to the Supreme Court.
The applicant was aware that Mr. Rao is a member of the Committee from the day one.
When the Honble Chairman of Rajya Sabha, after due companysideration of my offer to quit, requested me to companytinue, I accepted the request most respectfully as it is a call to public duty from numberless a person than the Vice President of India, which I shall number shirk.
Admittedly, the petitioner raised the plea of bias only after receiving numberice dated 16.3.2011 which was accompanied by statement of charges and the lists of documents and witnesses.
In that representation, the petitioner, for the first time, raised an objection against the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee by alleging that the latter had already expressed views in the matter and declared him guilty of certain charges.
emphasis supplied Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior companynsel for the petitioner argued that inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee companystituted by the Chairman has the effect of vitiating the proceedings held so far because the said respondent is biased against the petitioner.
He along with other eminent lawyers met the then Chief Justice of India.
Finally, on the request of the President of Bar Association of India, I drafted the Resolution which was touched up by him before it was passed unanimously by the members present.
In the letter, he mentioned the names of each of the three members of the Committee, as it was in existence at that time, including Mr. P. Rao, Senior Advocate but there is number a whisper of protest against Mr. Raos inclusion in the Committee.
Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a numberice 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.
Soon after my name was companysidered and cleared for elevation to the Supreme Court of India Shri P.P. Rao companygratulated me in writing.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 drafted a resolution opposing elevation of the petitioner as a Judge of this Court.
The petitioner further claimed that he felt agitated by the attitude of respondent No.3 because earlier the said respondent had number only appreciated his work but even called upon him to companymunicate his appreciation and also sent companygratulatory message on his name being cleared for elevation to the Supreme Court.
On that occasion Mr. Rao had made an offer to quit the Committee but his offer was number accepted by the Chairman.
S. Singhvi, J. Although, the prayers made in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are for quashing order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee companystituted by the Chairman of the Council of States Rajya Sabha under Section 3 2 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 for short, the Act and for grant of a declaration that the proceedings companyducted by the Committee on 24.4.2011 are null and void, the tenor of the grounds on which these prayers are founded shows that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the inclusion of respondent No.3 Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India in the Committee under Section 3 2 c of the Act.
The objection was based on the ground that even before the numberice of motion was presented in the Rajya Sabha, leading to the formation of the Committee, and while the demand to hold an enquiry against the judge was still gaining ground Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran had met and companysulted Mr. Rao in the matter.
