C RAVICHANDRAN IYER Vs. JUSTICE A M BHATTACHARJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a practising advocate, has initiated the public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining permanently the Bar council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) , Bombay Bar Association (BBA) and the Advocates' Association of Western India (AAWI) , Respondents 2 to 4 respectively, coercing Justice A. M. Bhattacharjee (the 1st respondent) , chief justice of Bombay High court, to resign from the office as Judge. He also sought an investigation by the central Bureau of Investigation etc. (Respondents 8 to 10 into the allegations made against the 1st respondent and if the same are found true, to direct the 5th respondent. Speaker, Lok Sabha to irtitiate action for his removal under Article 124 (4 and (5 read with Article 218 of the Constitution of India and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, 'the Act'). This court on 24/3/1995 issued notice to Respondents 2 to 4 only and rejected the prayer for interim direction to the President of India and the Union of India (Respondents 6 and 7 respectively) not to give effect to the resignation by the 1st respondent. We have also issued notice to the Attorney General for India and the President of the Supreme court Bar Association (SCBA). The BBA filed a counter-affidavit through its President, Shri Iqbal Mahomedali Chagia. Though Respondents 2 and 4 are represented through counsel, they did not file any counter-affidavit. The SCBA informed the court that its newly elected office-bearers required time to take a decision on the stand to be taken and we directed them to file theirwritten submission. Shri F. S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the BBA and Shri Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for AAWI, the 4th respondent. The learned Attorney General also assisted the court. We place on record our deep appreciation for their valuable assistance.

(2.) The SCBA, instead of filing written submissions sent a note with proposals to reopen the case; to issue notice to all the Bar Associations in the country and refer the matter to a bench of not less than five, preferably seven. Judges for decision after hearing them all. We do not think that it is necessary to accede to this suggestion.

(3.) The petitioner in a well-documented petition stated and argued with commitment that the news published in various national newspapers does prove that Respondents 2 to 4 had pressurised the 1st respondent to resign from the office as Judge for his alleged misbehaviour. The Constitution provides for independence of the Judges of the higher courts, i. e. , the Supreme court and the High courts. It also lays down in proviso (a) to clause (2 of Article 124; so too in Article 217 (1 proviso (a) and Article 124 (4, procedure for voluntary resignation by a Judge, as well as for compulsory removal, respectively from office in the manner prescribed therein and in accordance with the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The acts and actions of Respondents 2 to 4 are unknown to law, i. e. , removal by forced resignation, which is not only unconstitutional but also deleterious to the independence of the judiciary. The accusations against the 1st respondent without proper investigation by an independent agency seriously damage the image of judiciary and efficacy of judicial adjudication and thereby undermine credibility of the judicial institution itself. Judges are not to be judged by the Bar. Allowing adoption of such demands by collective pressure rudely shakes the confidence and competence of judges of integrity, ability, moral vigour and ethical firmness, which in turn, sadly destroys the very foundation of democratic polity. Therefore, the pressure tactics by the Bar requires to be nipped in the bud. He, therefore, vehemently argued and requested the court to adopt such procedure which would safeguard the independence of the judiciary and protect the judges from pressure through unconstitutional methods to demit the office.