Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s decision to reject notices of motion seeking disqualification of the Vice President under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The Court upheld the maintainability of the Vice President’s preliminary scrutiny and held:
“There is no prohibition for the Chairperson to take a call at the threshold on the maintainability of the motion.”
The Court clarified that the Vice President, in his capacity as Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha, did not act unconstitutionally in rejecting the notices at the preliminary stage without referring them to an Inquiry Committee.
Facts
Several notices under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution were submitted by Members of Parliament seeking initiation of removal proceedings against a Supreme Court judge. These motions were addressed to the Rajya Sabha Chairperson, who is also the Vice President of India. The Chairperson rejected these motions, stating that they lacked merit and were not based on cogent material. This prompted writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of such rejections without an inquiry.
Issues
- Whether the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha can reject a notice of motion for the removal of a judge at the threshold, on the ground of maintainability, without referring it to a Judicial Inquiry Committee?
- Whether such rejection is amenable to judicial review under Article 32?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that the Constitution mandates the Chairperson to refer every removal motion to a Judicial Inquiry Committee once it is supported by the requisite number of members. They argued that any scrutiny at the pre-inquiry stage violates the scheme of Article 124(4) and 217, read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The petitioners emphasized that the Chairperson’s role is purely administrative and ceremonial once the required signatures are gathered, and hence, he cannot exercise discretion in rejecting the motion. It was submitted that such discretion would frustrate the constitutional process meant to ensure judicial accountability.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, including the Vice President’s office, defended the rejection, arguing that a constitutional authority cannot be reduced to a mere post office. It was argued that the power to scrutinize the notice of motion is inherent and necessary to weed out frivolous, politically motivated, or scandalous charges against judges. They contended that Rule 3(1) of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 vests the Chairperson with the power to assess the motion’s seriousness and credibility before referring it to a Committee. Additionally, it was contended that such preliminary scrutiny ensures the protection of judicial independence by avoiding unnecessary embarrassment to sitting judges.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted that Article 124(4) and Article 217 provide for the removal of judges on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity. This mechanism is supplemented by the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 3(1) of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules specifically allows the Chairperson to examine the motion and form an opinion as to whether it should be admitted. The Court clarified that the constitutional scheme contemplates a degree of discretion at the preliminary stage to preserve the dignity of the judiciary and avoid misuse of the removal procedure.
The Bench underscored that the word “may” used in Rule 3(1) is indicative of discretion and cannot be construed to mean “must” or “shall.” Therefore, the Chairperson is well within his authority to reject the motion based on lack of merit or maintainability.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to its earlier ruling in M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India (1992 Supp (1) SCC 60), which held that the Chairperson has the discretion to act under the Judges (Inquiry) Act and cannot be compelled to forward every motion. It also cited K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991 Supp (2) SCC 644), reaffirming the principle that high constitutional functionaries cannot be subjected to unwarranted judicial scrutiny while discharging their constitutional obligations.
These cases supported the proposition that some level of preliminary scrutiny is not only permissible but essential to prevent abuse of the removal process.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that:
“To insist that the Chairperson must mechanically refer all motions to a Committee would be to undermine the scheme of the Constitution and the purpose of the Judges (Inquiry) Act.”
It clarified that such mechanical referrals would place judges under constant threat of politically motivated removal motions, which could seriously affect judicial independence.
Further, the Court held that the process under Article 124(4) and 217 is not open-ended and requires a balance between judicial accountability and independence. In this context, the Chairperson’s discretion is a vital constitutional safeguard.
The Court also declined to interfere with the Chairperson’s decision under Article 32, holding that such actions are not amenable to judicial review unless they suffer from mala fides, which was not demonstrated in this case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions challenging the Vice President’s rejection of removal motions against a sitting judge. It upheld the Vice President’s authority as the Rajya Sabha Chairperson to undertake threshold scrutiny and reject motions deemed not maintainable. The Court reiterated:
“The process of removal must not be trivialized by rendering the Chairperson a mere conduit for all motions, regardless of merit.”
Implications
This judgment affirms the discretionary powers of the Rajya Sabha Chairperson in the removal process of judges, reinforcing the delicate balance between judicial accountability and independence. It insulates the judiciary from political vendettas while preserving a constitutional remedy for genuine cases of misbehavior. It also sets a clear precedent that judicial review of such administrative decisions is permissible only in rare cases of mala fides or constitutional violation.
Brief on Cases Referred
- M. Krishna Swami v. Union of India (1992) – Established that the Chairperson has discretion to examine motions and is not bound to forward them blindly.
- K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) – Emphasized the autonomy of constitutional authorities and the need to shield them from intrusive judicial scrutiny.
Both cases were instrumental in affirming that constitutional functionaries, while exercising statutory powers, retain autonomy to uphold the integrity of the process.
FAQs
1. Can the Rajya Sabha Chairperson reject a motion seeking removal of a judge without referring it to a committee?
Yes. The Chairperson has the discretion to reject such motions at the threshold if they are found to be lacking in merit or not maintainable.
2. Is the Chairperson’s rejection of a disqualification motion subject to judicial review?
Judicial review is limited. The Supreme Court held that such administrative decisions are reviewable only if mala fides or gross constitutional violations are proven.
3. Does the judgment affect the accountability mechanism for judges?
No. It preserves the accountability framework but ensures that the process is not misused for frivolous or political reasons.