Petition Filed Against Vice President's Order of Impeachment Motion Withdrawn

The petition filed by two Rajya Sabha MPs, Partap Singh Bajwa and Dr Amee Harshadray, challenging Vice President Venkaiah Naidu's decision, to reject the removal of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, was withdrawn on Tuesday. Besides challenging the VP’s Order, the petition also criticized a part of the Section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act, which pertains to conferring absolute discretionary powers on the Lok Sabha Speaker or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, regarding admitting a motion of impeachment. Other reliefs sought, pertained to quashing of the Vice President's Order, thereby directing him to introduce the motion.

The main contention contained in the petition was that the Vice President need not adjudicate on whether the charges mentioned in the motion have substance or not. His role is only to take a preliminary view of the nature of charges mentioned and constitute an inquiry committee under section 3 of the Judges Inquiry Act.

On Monday, Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioners before a Division Bench (DB) comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar and S. K. Kaul. He questioned why the petition had not been listed. He stated that according to the procedure, considering the nature of the petition, neither the CJI nor the Registrar (Judicial) can have a say in listing the matter. To this, the DB reminded him of the 2017 controversy regarding the Medical Colleges Bribery case. Kapil Sibal then requested the Bench to take a Judicial view of the listing and not to pass any Orders on the petition. The Bench then directed the petitioners to appear before it at 10:30 AM on Tuesday.

To the surprise of the petitioners, the matter had been listed before a five-Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Justices A. K. Sikri, S. A. Bobde, N. V. Ramanna, Arun Mishra and A. K. Goel (6 to 10 in seniority). The petitioners then demanded that they receive a copy of the Order constituting the Bench, which was refused. The Bench directed the petitioners to argue the merits of the petition, which the petitioners refused to do until they could obtain a copy of the Order. The Attorney General, K. K. Venugopal defended the constitution of the Bench, stating that the established law is clear that the CJI may constitute Benches as deemed fit. Kapil Sibal countered by referring to a 2005 Judgement which allowed a matter to be listed before a Division Bench rather than a seven-Judge Bench as prayed for in an Interim Application.

The AG then questioned the petition itself, stating that the motion had been signed by 64 MPs from seven different parties, whereas the present petition consists of two MPs who are both from the Congress. He then stated that this is indicative that the other MPs were satisfied with the Vice President's Order. Kapil Sibal countered by asking which law states this position? Meanwhile, Advocate RP Luthra referred to the BCI resolution barring lawyer parliamentarians from appearing before a High Court or the Supreme Court when they have participated in an impeachment proceeding against a judge of that court. The Bench, however, dismissed this contention. The petition was subsequently withdrawn.