KRISHNASWAMI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions under Art.32 of the Constitution were heard together and are disposed of by this common Judgement since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Karnal in Haryana. Both these petitions are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability V/s. Union of India and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992 Mrs. Sarojini Ramaswami V/s. Union of India - which has been disposed of by us earlier today by a separate Judgement pronounced therein giving all relevant facts.

(2.) Petitioner Raj Kanwar (in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992) alleges that the notice of motion by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha, its admission by the then Speaker of Lok Sabha and constitution of the Inquiry Committee under S.3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 are unconstitutional being violative of Art. 124(4) of the Constitution. It is also asserted in that Writ Petition that the Judgement in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability is violative of Art. 145(3) of the Constitution and hence void ab initio. On this basis, the relief sought in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992 is as under :-

(3.) In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami claims sufficient interest to file the writ petition as a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha and as an advocate of Madras known to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami for long. In this petition, it is alleged that certain illegalities in the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee prejudicial to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami have rendered the inquiry invalid. On the basis of the illegalities in procedure, alleged in the petition, the relief sought is for quashing the proceedings of the Committee as invalid. This is the alternative prayer in the petition while the primary relief claimed in the petition is substantially the same as in the other petition to quash the notice of motion admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha and the charges framed by the Committee against Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami. Another prayer made to hold that the Inquiry Committee is disqualified to conduct the inquiry was given up at the hearing by Shri Sibal accepting the position that the allegation of bias against the Committee could be examined only at the instance of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami who is not even a party in either of these two writ petitions. In substance, the primary relief claimed in both these writ petitions is 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. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the alternative prayer for quashing the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee on the ground of illegality in the procedure adopted by it for conducting the inquiry is alleged to be based on the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability which held that the proceeding relating to inquiry conducted by the Committee is statutory in nature subject to judicial review.