LILY THOMAS MS ADVOCATE Vs. SPEAKER LOK SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a practising advocate of this court, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking declaration that the Motion of Impeachment against Mr Justice V. Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of this court moved in the Lok Sabha seeking to remove him from the office of Judge, should be deemed tohave been carried by construing the expression, support of the majority in article 124 (4 in such a manner that any member who abstained from voting should be deemed to have supported the Motion. It was also claimed that this court may recommend for repeal of Article 124 (4 of the constitution as it has been rendered unworkable and non-functional and that it be substituted by an appropriate provision. Reliance was placed on halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 10 and it was urged that although the parliament was not strictly speaking a judicial body but its jurisdiction while exercising the right of vote on an Impeachment Motion is judicial, and, therefore, the refusal of the members or their abstaining from voting was an abdication of exercise of judicial power which may be set right judicially by assuming that those who abstained from voting should be deemed to have voted in favour of the Motion. The petitioner urged that silence or acquiescence amounts to acceptance or approval, therefore, a member of Parliament who under the procedure did not cast his vote obviously was not against the Motion, and, therefore, he should be deemed to have supported it. She urged that in United States there is specific provision permitting such abstention but in absence of any such power a member of the Parliament is constitutionally obliged either to support or oppose a Motion. Once he did not oppose it he should be deemed to have supported it.

(2.) Article 124 (4 is extracted below:

(3.) Article 124 (4 does not exclude neutrality or abstaining from voting. Use of the expression, 'not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting' in the article implies that the Motion shall be carried only if the requisite numbers expressed their opinion by casting vote in support of the Motion. One may be present and yet not voting (sic vote). A reading of paragraph 1163 of Vol. 34 of Halsbury's Laws of England indicates that when division becomes necessary then the Speaker directs, those in support to go in the right lobby and those who oppose in left lobby. And, "the members who take part in it pass through one or other of the lobbies, give their names to the clerks who sit at desks, and are counted by the tellers as they leave the respective lobbies. After at least six minutes have elapsed since the order for clearing the lobbies, the speaker orders the doors giving access to the lobby to be locked. When all members who wish to record their votes have passed out of the two lobbies and been counted, the four tellers go to the table of the House; they then report the numbers of the division which are announced from the chair". The use of the word 'wish' indicates that the right to vote is optional. The procedure of going into lobbies applies to those who wish to vote. In Practice and Procedure of Parliament by M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher the procedure of voting in Lok Sabha is described thus: