P D DINAKARAN Vs. HONBLE JUDGES INQUIRY COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee appointed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") whereby Respondent No. 2-Ms. R. Vaigai, Convenor of Forum for Judicial Accountability was allowed to remain present and watch the proceedings and to assist the Committee through its counsel and order dated 27.4.2011 whereby the petition filed for review of order dated 24.4.2011 was dismissed.

(2.) Shri Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner argued that Respondent No. 2 has No. locus to participate in the proceedings being conducted by the Committee on the basis of Resolution moved by 50 members of the Rajya Sabha and the orders passed by the Committee are ultra vires the provisions of the Act. Shri Sharan relied upon the judgments of Constitution Benches in Sarojini Ramaswami V/s. Union of India, 1992 4 SCC 506 and Krishna Swami V/s. Union of India, 1992 4 SCC 605 and argued that Respondent No. 2, who is a busybody qua the inquiry being conducted by the Committee cannot be allowed to remain present in the proceedings what to say of assisting the Committee's counsel. He referred to paragraph 69 of the first judgment and paragraphs 51 and 61 of the second judgment and argued that even though the views expressed by K. Ramaswamy, J. in the second judgment represent minority opinion, the same is binding on the Committee because majority of the Constitution Bench did not express any view on the scope of Section 4 of the Act. In support of last limb of his submission, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Mahendra Bhawanji Thakar V/s. S.P. Pande, 1964 AIR(Bom) 170 and Allahabad High Court in Prem Prakash Gupta V/s. Union of India, 1977 AIR(All) 482

(3.) We have thoughtfully considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel, but have not felt persuaded to agree with him that the impugned orders are ultra vires the provisions of the Act or are otherwise vitiated by any other legal infirmity.