SAROJINI RAMASWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The person entitled to seek judicial review and the stage at which it is available against the findings of the Inquiry Committee constituted under S. 3 (2 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in accordance with the law declared in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India is the question for decision in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the remedy of judicial review is available to the Judge concerned against the finding, if any, by the Inquiry Committee that the learned Judge is 'guilty' of misbehaviour onlyprior to submission of the report of the Committee to the Speaker in accordance with S. 4 (2 of the Act or latest till it is laid before the Parliament as required by S. 4 (3 of the Act, but not thereafter. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that a copy of the report should be furnished to the Judge concerned 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. The merit of this submission is considered herein.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of Mr Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of the Supreme court of India. In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, certain constitutional issues have been raised which are to be decided on the construction 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. In essence, this petition is a sequel to that earlier decision rendered in the context of the proceedings for removal of Mr Justice V. Ramaswami from the office of a Judge of the Supreme court of India.

(3.) 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 notice of motion for presenting an address to the President for the removal from office of Mr Justice V. Ramaswami. On 12/03/1991, the motion was admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha who also proceeded to constitute a Committee consisting 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. Chinappa Reddy, a retired Judge of this court as a distinguished jurist in terms of S. 3 (2 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. On dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha, the Union government was of the view that the notice 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 constitute a Committee under the provisions of the Act had lapsed with the dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha. Accordingly, the Union government abstained from acting in aid of the decision of the Speaker to notify 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. Important constitutional issues as to the status of a motion for theremoval 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 connected questions including the justiciability thereof in a court of law arose in these rather unfortunate circumstances.