Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 32 & 124(4) (5).

Supreme Court Judge-Proceedings for removal-Public Interest Litigation Writs challenging the removal proceedings by Advocate and a member of Lok Sabha Locus standi and maintainability of Petitions plea of reconsideration of earlier judgment Permissibility of Non-impleadment of judge concerned Effect of.

On February 27, 1991 a notice of motion signed by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha was presented to the speaker to initiate proceedings against Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of Supreme Court, alleging commission of financial irregularities in the discharge of his administrative duties as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The speaker admitted the motion and constituted an Inquiry Committee under section 3 (2) of Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The 9th Lok Sabha was dissolved on March 13, 1991. The Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and a host of writ petitions ensued, which were disposed of by a Constitution Bench reported in the Sub-Committee on Judicial Account- ability v. Union of India, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 741, in which this Court declared that the motion admitted by the Speaker of the 9th Lok Sabha is valid; bis action under the Act is outside the Parliament, the motion did not lapse, and the Union of India was directed to notify constitution of the committee under Section 3 (2) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued by the Central Government. The Secretary to the Inquiry Committee C issued notice in Form I of the Judges (Enquiry) Rules, 1969 on January 14, 1992 communicating definite charges and requested Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami to put in his written statement of defence on or before February 4, 1992 and to appear either in person or through counsel on February 10, 1992 along with his evidence. On request, two MPs, 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 petitioner's insistence to prove the innocence of the Judge was not acceded to.

Two petitions were filed in public interest and the primary relief claimed in both these petitions was 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. The petitioner (in W.P. 140 of 1992) filed a writ petition for quashing the notice of motion admitted by the Speaker and the charges framed by the committee against the Judge. The connected writ petition (No. 149/92) was filed by a member of the 10th Lok Shbha and an Advocate known to the Judge for long claiming the same relief as in the other petition. Besides the alternative prayer in this writ petition was to quash the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee on the ground that there were illegalities in the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee in conducting the inquiry against the Judge. This petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of three learned Judges which by its order dated 27.2.92 ordered that having regard to the importance of the questions raised, the matter be referred to the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Constitution Bench. Accordingly, a Bench of five Hon'ble Judges was constituted to hear both the petitions.

During the hearing of these petitions, two preliminary points viz., (1) Tenability of the plea for reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 4 S.C.C. 699 at the instance of the petitioners; and (2) maintainability of the petitions for reliefs claimed for the benefit of the Judge concerned without impleading him as a party arose for consideration.

On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that (1) in view of the fact that the Division Bench's order dated 27.2.1992 refers to petitioner's contentions, which were mainly for reconsideration of the earlier Constitution Bench decision of Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, those petitions cannot be disposed of on preliminary points without going into the merits of the contentions; (ii) the declaration of of law on the subject can be made in the absence of the judge concerned as a party with which H declaration he would be bound; and that in view of the high office held by the Judge It was consistent with the dignity of that office that he should A not be a petitioner or even a party in a case filed in the Court in which be himself is a Judge; (iii) the petitioners not being a party to the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability the remedy of review is not available to them.