SCR 108 1992 4 SCC 506 1992 5 JT 1 1992 2 SCALE 257 Under Article 32 of the Constitutions of India The Judgment was delivered by Honble Justice J. S. Verma, Honble Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy and Honble Justice S. C. Agrawal S.VERMA, J. for himself and on behalf of K. Jayachandra and S. C. Agrawal, JJ.
149 of 1992, stating that the Committee will abide by any directions that may be given in this regard by their Lordships in the said case.
The learned Judge Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami sent a letter dated May 10, 1992 to Mr. Justice P. B. Sawant, Presiding Officer of the Inquiry Committee, requesting that a companyy of the report of the Committee be forwarded to him giving him sufficient time to seek redress in a Court of law, if required or necessary, as a result of the findings of the Committee He was sent a reply by the Secretary to the Committee by letter dated May 15, 1992.
During summer vacation the petitioner filed the writ petition for the aforesaid reliefs which was posted along with writ petition No.
This is how Writ Petition No.
149 of 1992 in the Supreme Court of India, learnt that only 5 or 6 witnesses remain to be examined and that thereafter the matter will be fixed for arguments.
Dear Sir, When Writ Petition Civil No.
Mr. M. Krishna Swami filed Writ Petition No.
Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this Writ Petition informed the learned Judges that as the right of Mrs. Ramaswami to move this Honble Court directly flowed from your right to companytinue to hold office as a Judge of this Honble Court, you would naturally be bound by the adjudication rendered in respect of the relief sought in Writ Petition No.
Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd Ramaswami Committee Appointed under the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 433, Parliament House Annexe New Delhi 110001 No.
514 of 1992 Mrs. Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India and others.
514/ 1992 was taken up today, the Honble Judges companyprising the Bench wanted to be informed of your stand in respect of the binding nature of the adjudication in the event the petition was taken up for hearing and judgment rendered thereon.
514 of 1992.
The statement made by Mr. Sibal companyrectly reflects my position.
Accordingly, the Union Government abstained from acting in aid of the decision of the Speaker to numberify that the services of the two sitting Judges on the Committee would be treated as actual service within the meaning of para 11 b i of Part D of the Second Schedule to the Constitution to enable them to function as members of the Committee.
A body called the Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability represented by a Senior Advocate of this Court as its Convener filed Writ Petition No.
We have heard Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner, Shri F. S. Nariman for the Inquiry Committee and the Attorney General Shri G. Ramaswamy.
Accordingly, that writ petition was heard on the question of its maintainability for grant of the reliefs claimed therein without impleading the learned Judge Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, who would undoubtedly be directly affected by the decision on merits of the questions raised therein.
The present Writ Petition No.
Please companyfirm if Mr. Sibal has rightly companyveyed to the Honble Judges your position in this regard.
149 of 1992 Shri Krishna Swami v. Union of India which had been filed earlier and of which reference is made in this writ petition as well as in the companyrespondence between Mr. Justice v. Ramaswami and the Committee.
These letters are companylectively marked Annexure 1 to the petition.
Those reliefs relate to the aforesaid Inquiry by the Committee appointed under the Act to investigate into the allegations made against Mr. Justice v. Ramaswami.
124 4 of the Constitution of India.
514 of 1992 by Smt.
149 of 1992 also separately on the definite stand taken by the petitioner therein of pursuing that petition declining to implead Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami in spite of opportunity given for the purpose.
Majority view The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee companystituted under Section 3 2 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 hereinafter referred to as the Act in accordance with the law declared in Sub Cornmittee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, 1991 4 SCC 699 is the question for decision in this writ petition.
149 of 1992.
However, on 7 5 1992, Shri Kapil Sibal stated that the petitioner therein did number want to implead Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party and he had decided to pursue that writ petition as framed.
Before proceeding to companysider the arguments advanced by these learned companynsel, we companysider it appropriate to make a brief reference to Writ Petition Civil No.
According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the companycerned Judge against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is guilty of misbehaviour only prior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with Section 4 2 of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by Section 4 3 of the Act, but number thereafter.
Sarojini Ramaswami for the relief claimed herein on behalf of her husband Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami.
Yours faithfully, Sd S. C. Gupta Secretary The petitioner, Smt.
149 of 1992 came up for hearing before this Bench.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd Ranjit Kumar Honble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami 2, Teen Murti Marg New Delhi.
Writ Petition No.
491 of 1991 and the Supreme Court Bar Association filed Writ Petition No.
The companymittee on assumption of its office while started investigation, the stay of the proceedings, though sought for, was number granted and the investigation went on.
The companymon prayers in both the petitions were for a direction to the Union of India to take immediate steps to enable the Inquiry Committee to discharge its functions under the Act and to restrain the Judge companycerned Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami from performing judicial functions and exercising judicial powers during the pendency of the proceedings before the Committee.
149 of 1992 and questioned the power and jurisdiction of the Speaker to admit the motion, the companystitution of the companymittee and the procedure it adapted to investigate into the charges etc.
1992 AIR 2219 1992 1 Suppl.
Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a companyy of the report should be furnished to the companycerned Judge before it is submitted to the Speaker, to preserve the right of the Judge to seek judicial review of the finding of guilty, if any, in the report.
An application for the same relief was also made in Writ Petition No.
The Committee companystituted by the Speaker under the Act then proceeded to inquire into the allegations made against the Judge companycerned Mr. Justice Ramaswami and, as intimated at the hearing of this petition, the Committee has companypleted the Inquiry and also prepared its Report for being submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as required by Section 4 2 of the Act.
On 6 5 1992, during companysideration of the question of maintainability of that writ petition in the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party, Shri Kapil Sibal, senior companynsel appearing for the petitioner in that writ petition also took time to make an application for impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party in that petition.
On dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha, the Union Government was of the view that the numberice of motion given by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President for removal of the learned Judge as well as the decision of the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha to admit the motion and companystitute a Committee under the provisions of the Act had lapsed with the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha.
The relief sought in this writ petition is for a direction to the Committee to supply a companyy of the Report of the Committee to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami and to withhold forwarding of the said Report to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha simultaneously to enable Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami to seek redress in a companyrt of law, if required or necessary, against the findings of the Committee in its Report.
Important companystitutional issues as to the status of a motion for the removal of a Judge under the Act made pursuant to Article 124 5 of the Constitution and applicability of the doctrine of lapse to such a motion upon the dissolution of the Lok Sabha together with the companynected questions including the justiciability thereof in a Court of law arose in these rather unfortunate circumstances.
Sarojini Ramaswami, wife of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, has filed this writ petition on July 6, 1992 after receipt of the letter dated May 15, 1992 by Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami from the Secretary to the Committee, impleading the Union of India and the Committee appointed under the Act as the respondents.
The same is reproduced as under Ranjit Kumar Advocate July 21, 1992.
Certain allegations of financial improprieties and irregularities were made against Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami in his capacity as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana prior to his appointment in October 1989 as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha by a numberice of motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami.
Sarojini Ramaswami came to be filed thereafter in these circumstances on companyclusion of the Inquiry by the Committee companystituted under the Act.
In addition to issuing numberice to the respondents, namely, the Union of India and the Inquiry Committee appointed under Section 3 2 of the Act, we also requested the learned Attorney General to appear and assist the Court in his capacity as the Attorney General of India.
While we were hearing the writ petition, on May 10, 1992, the learned Judge addressed a letter to the Presiding Officer of the Committee requesting to supply him a companyy of its report before being forwarded to the Speaker and also requested to withhold the same by giving reasonable time to peruse and to take appropriate action thereon.
The petitioner is the wife of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
The merit of this submission is companysidered herein.
149 of 1992 was filed in this Court by M. Krishna Swami, a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha for several reliefs specified therein.
The decision rendered therein by a Constitution Bench is Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, 1991 4 SCC 699 The Constitution Bench by a majority of 4 1 held that a motion under Section 3 2 of the Act does number lapse upon the dissolution of the House.
541 of 1991 in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
On March 12, 1991, the motion was admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha who also proceeded to companystitute a Committee companysisting of Mr. Justice P. B. Sawant, a sitting Judge of this Court, Mr. Justice P. D. Desai, Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court as a distinguished jurist in terms of Section 3 2 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968.
This relief is sought on the basis of the decision of the Constitution Bench reported in 1991 4 SCC 699 AIR 1992 SC 320 that the entire proceedings of the Committee are statutory in nature and, therefore, subject to judicial review.
Sub Writ Petition C No.
As the Committee will be sitting from May 11, 1992 onwards, presumably the entire process will be companypleted during the period when the Honble Supreme Court is closed for summer vacation.
A Commission of Inquiry was set up under the Parliamentary Judges Commission of Inquiry Act, 1988.
This Bench was given to understand that the Committee would submit the report to the Honble Speaker on or before July 31, 1992, the extended date.
The petitioner therein M. Krishna Swami claiming to be a person interested as a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha as well as an advocate of Madras known to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami for long alleged certain illegalities in the procedure adopted by the Committee prejudicial to the learned Judge Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami and on that basis, apart from seeking reconsideration of the decision in Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability, AIR 1991 SC 320 , also sought quashing of the charges framed by the Committee and a declaration that the proceedings of the Committee are null and void.
My companynsel Shri Ranjit Kumar, who was present in Court during the companyrse of the hearing in Writ Petition No.
When the matter came up for hearing before us first on July 21, 1992, we indicated to Shri Kapil Sibal, senior companynsel for the petitioner that even though the petitioners right for the relief claimed in this petition is founded on her status as wife of the learned Judge and the right flowing to her through her husband, yet Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami had number been impleaded as a party and it was also number indicated that the writ petition was for and on behalf of the learned Judge so as to bind the learned Judge himself to the decision in this petition.
That writ petition was listed initially before a Division Bench companyprising of three learned Judges which referred the writ petition for hearing by a larger Bench.
149 of 1992.
In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, certain companystitutional issues have been raised which are to be decided on the companystruction of Article 124 of the Constitution of India and the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 read with the Judges Inquiry Rules, 1969 framed thereunder, in the background of the law declared in Sub Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, 1991 4 SCC 699 In essence, this petition is a sequel to that earlier decision rendered in the companytext of the proceedings for removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami from the office of a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
17/17 CB 11/91 May 15, 1992 From C. Gupta, Secretary To Honble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, Judge, Supreme Court of India, 2 Teen Murti Marg, New Delhi 110011.
Sir, With reference to your letter dated 10th May, 1992 addressed to the Presiding Officer, 1 am to inform you that companynsel for the Committee brought your letter to the attention of the Constitution Bench which is number seized of the matter, during the hearing on 14th May, 1992 in Writ Petition No.
Sd V. Ramaswami 21 7 1992 On production of the above letter of Shri Ranjit Kumar, bearing thereon the endorsement of acceptance by Mr. Justice v. Ramaswami in his own hand, we made an order to this effect which is companytained in the proceedings dated July 22,1992 asunder Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned companynsel for the petitioner has filed a letter dated July 21, 1992 addressed by him to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami bearing the endorsement of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami at the foot of it accepting as companyrect Justice V. Ramaswami the position is that this writ petition is in substance by the learned Judge himself field through his wife who is shown as the petitioner Emphasis supplied The result, therefore, is that this writ petition is in substance by the learned Judge Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami himself filed through his wife, the petitioner Smt.
Sir, I am informed that the Committee is resuming its sittings for further examination of witnesses on May 11, 1992.
