J-Gun: Fire Or Misfire?

The shooting of the complaint dated October 6 by the Chief Minister of AP to the Chief Justice of India marks a rare happening in the free India. People are watching with bated breath as to what would happen next. Whether the umpire would declare his judgment that the shooter has hit the bull's eye or he would declare the attempt a miss. And if the shooter has succeeded in his attempt, what would be the fate of the targets. Conversely, if he fails to hit the targets, whether he would be just asked to go home without a trophy or he would attract any punishment. Thus, several ticklish issues have been the talk of the town today

The stage is perfectly set. All parameters of a fierce competition have been complied with. The shooting event has just begun. The first round has just started. Ace player, the shooter Y.S Jaganmohan Reddy, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh has effectively fired shots at a senior judge and the next probable Chief Justice of India, N.V Ramana, the Chief Justice of AP High Court, Jitendra Kumar Maheswari and several other judges of AP and Telangana High Courts. The aim is not allusive; he is none other than the former Chief Minister of AP Nara Chandrababu Naidu. Obviously, the Chief Justice of India, Sharad A Bobde and his nominee judges are the umpires in this game. The Parliament would be the appellate forum in the event an appeal is preferred by the player or his targets.

After this, people are watching with bated breath as to what would happen next. Whether the umpire would declare his judgment that the shooter has hit the bull's eye or he would declare the attempt a miss. And if the shooter has succeeded in his attempt, what would be the fate of the targets. Conversely, if he fails to hit the targets, whether he would be just asked to go home without a trophy or he would attract any punishment. Thus, several ticklish issues have been the talk of the town today.

The shooting of the complaint dated October 6 by the Chief Minister of AP to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) marks a rare happening in the free India. In the past, a very few such incidents have occurred when the two Constitutional functionaries had taken upon each other. When Morarji Desai was the Chief Minister of Bombay State, Justice M C Chagla had in one of his public speech taken pot-shots at the government and its policies. Desai, in turn had expressed displeasure at such public utterances by a Judge and advised him that he should refrain from criticizing the government. To this, Justice Chagla had responded that he would continue to speak up against the government if it dares to interfere with the affairs of the judiciary.

Another incident had taken place in the A.P State itself. This occurred when D Sanjivayya was the Chief Minister. In those days, allegedly 'Reddyism' was rampant in judiciary. The Chief Minister, through his 'Secret' letter dated November 4, 1961 had complained to the then Home Minister of India, Lal Bahadur Shastri against the Chief Justice of A.P High Court P Chandra Reddy and his coterie. The tone and tenor of the letter were quite suave and dignified. Earlier, Sanjivayya had also met personally the Home Minister and apprised him of the goings on in the State High Court. Following this, a senior judge of the Supreme Court, P.B Gajendra Gadkar was deputed to the High Court for a sort of enquiry at the end of which the result was that the Chief Justice of AP and another judge were transferred to the High Courts at Madras and Gauhati in their respective positions.

But now a lot of water has flown down the Ganga. The days of political leaders like D Sanjivayya and Lal Bahadur Shastri have gone into the annals of history. Today, the complainant is a politician facing as many as 31 criminal cases with the allegations of corruption, money laundering and what not. On the other hand, if the allegations made by the Chief Minister are to be taken for their face value, the incumbent senior judge of the Supreme Court too, stands in the dock. The allegations right from undue interference in the administration of the High Court of his home state to getting largess from the state government headed by Nara Chandrababu Naidu through the proxy of his daughters are of serious nature and if proved, may cost his job.

Considering the scheme of the things, as envisaged in the 'In-House Procedure' adopted by the Supreme Court at its Full Court meeting held on December 15, 1999 if the Chief Justice is satisfied that prima facie the allegations are of such nature that require an enquiry, the Chief Justice of India should constitute an enquiry committee consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to enquire into the allegations against the Supreme Court judge N V Ramana while in case of the High Court judges he should constitute a committee consisting of a High Court judge and two Chief Justices of other High Courts.

The said Committees after hearing the versions of the concerned judges will submit a report to the Chief Justice of India, clearly stating : i) the complaint is frivolous and baseless ; or ii) the allegations are proved to be true ; or iii) though the allegations are proved to be true, they are not of a serious nature. Depending upon the findings of the Committee, the Chief Justice of India may close the complaint , recommend the Parliament through the government to initiate the impeachment proceedings against the errant judges or ask such judges to resign. If a guilty judge remains adamant and refuses to resign, just as was the case of Justice V Ramaswamy, the Supreme Court can forward his case to the government for initiating action for his removal from the post as per Constitution of India.

While the Constitution does not use the word 'impeachment', it is colloquially used to refer to the proceedings under Article 124 for the removal of a Supreme Court judge and Article 218 for the removal of a High Court judge. The Constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the President, based on a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament. The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Enquiry Act, 1968.

However, it is a fact that since the Independence, not a single judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court has been removed through impeachment. The infamous case of justice V Ramaswamy too, had hit the hurdle as due to the Congress party abstaining from voting in the Lok Sabha, the impeachment motion could not be passed though earlier, it was adopted by the Rajya Sabha.

The complaint, therefore, is likely to hit the legal rock ultimately and the only benefit the complainant Chief Minister Jaganmohan Reddy could expect to reap from the complaint is that to convey to the people that all is not well with the judiciary. But such a sinister motive could hardly convince the people as the complainant himself has not come out with clean hands.

The CBI had filed in 2012 charges against Jaganmohan Reddy with the allegations, inter alia, of amassing more than Rs.1 lakh crore of wealth by misusing the office of his late father, Y.S Rajasekhar Reddy. Subsequently, he was arrested in May, 2012 and was granted bail only after he spent about 16 months in jail. However, the judges and the former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu too, have no reason to rejoice because the serious allegations of making huge bucks in the purchase deal of 33,000 acres of delta farm land are hanging over them like the Damocles' sword.