CJI impeachment notice: Two Congress MPs challenge Venkaiah Naidu’s decision in SC


New Delhi, May 7 (NIE): Two weeks after Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, two Congress parliamentarians on Monday challenged the decision in the Supreme Court and urged Justice Chelameswar for urgent listing of the petition.

Congress MPs in the Rajya Sabha – Pratap Singh Bajwa from Punjab and Amee Harshadray Yajnik from Gujarat – in their joint petition said that once an impeachment motion was signed by the requisite number of MPs, the RS chairman had no option but to constitute an inquiry committee to investigate the allegations against the CJI. The petitioners also doubted the way Naidu handled the whole situation, saying the notice by the opposition MPs was given on April 20 and it was rejected on April 24.

Justice Chelameswar, however, said since there was a Constitution bench’s decision on CJI being the master of the roster, the matter should be mentioned before Dipak Misra. To this, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who has promised not to practice before Misra’s court till the CJI’s retirement, contended that since the impeachment notice was against the CJI, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court could direct for listing of the petition. The apex court bench, also consisting of Justice S K Kaul, however, did not pass any order and asked the Congress leaders to return on Tuesday.

On April 24, Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment notice signed by 71 opposition MPs of the Upper House, seven of whom retired last month, against CJI Dipak Misra, citing absence of any “proved misbehaviour” or “incapacity” on the part of the senior judge. He ruled in a 10-page order that the grounds were insufficient to admit the petition. Following the rejection of the impeachment motion, Sibal had termed Naidu’s order as “unprecedented, illegal, ill-advised and hasty” and asserted that the party would challenge it in the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also adjourned the hearing on a separate PIL that sought to restrain media from reporting and MPs from making any public statement with respect to impeachment motion against CJI Misra. Justice Chelameswar, along with four senior judges of the Supreme Court, had held an unprecedented press conference in January regarding a crisis in the judiciary and had raised questions on “selective” case allocation and certain judicial orders by CJI Misra.

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • SMR, karkala

    Mon, May 07 2018

    CJI Misra had come under the scanner for allegedly transferring sensitive political cases to favourable benches;

    1. ‘Bribery in Prasad Educational Trust Medical College,
    2. Appointment of CBI Special Director,
    3. An Appeal in the 2G case,
    4. Death of Judge Loya,
    5. A case involving MP Shashi Tharoor,
    6. Assets of Jay Shah,
    7. Aadhaar cases,
    8. Appointment of BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra in ONGC,
    9. Appointment of judges and
    10. A case under the Land Acquisition Act.’

    Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had ‘fixed’ benches which has political connections either rejected the petition challenging the earlier verdict or favoured the accused in the judgement.

    This is first time in the history of India Six national parties as per the constitution validity submitted impeachment motion after four the senior judges earlier revolted against the credibility of the court headed by Dipak Misra.
    Now with 16 months to left for Dipak Misra tenure to come to an end BJP don't want to lose the remote control when political sensitive cases like Babri Masjid is still to be heard under his own bench.
    Vice President instead of forming the committee once again came to rescue of his Sangh Parivar comrade by rejecting the impeachment motion.
    Dipak Misra from his earlier days have always played bipartisan role like in Cauvery water sharing favouring Tamil Nadu when Karnataka is facing drought. He is also know to pass the compulsory singing of 'National Anthem' in cinema hall were people go for entertainment. While passing the blunder judgement he has not even considered the physically challenged people, pregnant ladies, old age and so on.
    It is unfortunate that countries second highest citizen of India has let the law of the land to its lowest when the dignity and credibility of the court is in question.
    I seriously doubt Supreme Court headed by same bench will consider it. Only petitio like Spain did last month 'wolf attack' rape case Indian citizen is the only hope.
    Jai Hind

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Swamy, Mangalore

    Mon, May 07 2018

    Partners-in-Crime. Typical RSS mentality. Venku is behaving like a dictator and want to put a lid on the case as quickly as possible while 72 MPs have submitted the notice of impeachment. He should at least taken time to listen and enquired about this CJI's roaster if Venku had guts to prove CJI is innocent????......

    DisAgree [1] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Mon, May 07 2018

    Venkaiah Naidu has to accept Law of the Land ...

    DisAgree [3] Agree [21] Reply Report Abuse

  • HENRY MISQUITH, Bahrain

    Mon, May 07 2018

    Penkayya is blind Bhakt of his master.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [13] Reply Report Abuse

  • Af,,, Mangalore

    Mon, May 07 2018

    Venkaiyya naidu more interested in this file and rejected other than any other file pending on his table for signing , everyone knows Naidus background,

    DisAgree [2] Agree [19] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: CJI impeachment notice: Two Congress MPs challenge Venkaiah Naidu’s decision in SC



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.