Impeachment move against HC judge

Following the submission of a memorandum by 61 members of TDP and some Left parties to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, Hamid Ansari, for the initiation of impeachment proceedings against Justice C V Nagarjuna Reddy of the High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, not only the legal fraternity and political circles are agog with activity but also the intelligentsia as a whole has shown its grave concern.

The judge in the dock, Justice Reddy, has been accused of the acts of Dalit victimisation, nepotism and misuse of office. The Rajya Sabha Chairman has little option as the condition of signing the memorandum by not less than fifty members of the Rajya Sabha as stipulated under Section 3 (1)(b) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 has been fulfilled.

Therefore, formation of a three-member Inquiry Committee as per Section 3 (2) comprising one each among the Chief Justice and other judges of the Supreme Court, Chief justices of High Courts and a distinguished jurist seems to be imminent.

The Committee after prolonged investigation and deliberations the Committee will submit its report to the Chairman and if the Committee has exonerated the said Judge, no other action will be taken by the Rajya Sabha. On the other hand, if the Report indicts the judge, then only the voting process on impeachment motions will commence.

But going by the past experience the whole exercise is likely to result in a futility, thanks to the procedural flaws. The seven-sections Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (51 of 1968) came into force on January 1, 1969. It just remains on the statues book without any use for 42 years. Then, came the infamous case of Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in the year 2011. The impeachment motion fell as the ruling Congress party abstained from voting.

Similarly, in the same year,2011, Justice Soumitra Sen, who was prima facie found to have misappropriated large sums from the year 1984 to 2006 when he was the court receiver, also could not be impeached since he resigned on September 1, 2011 just four days before when the impeachment motion was scheduled for discussion and voting.

The lacunae in the law seem to be in the definition of a ‘judge’ which is interpreted as a ‘sitting’ judge. Thus, resigned or retired tainted judges find an easy escape route from the shameful removal from the coveted post.

Another case is of Justice P.D Dinakaran against whom 12 specific acts of misbehaviour were alleged in the year 2011. He too, resigned to escape from the jaws of impeachment. Similarly, since the year 2015, Justice S K Gangele has been facing the inquiry for the allegations of sexual harassment of a woman judge in Gwalior. But the time is running out since the tainted judge is due to retire on January 26, 2018.

One fails to understand as to why a judge of the superior court facing serious allegations should be allowed to resign peacefully or close the inquiry after his retirement.

Parliament, therefore, should amend the Judges (Inquiry) Act immediately to the effect that there shall be speedy time-bound inquiry in the matter and that the tainted judge facing such an inquiry shall not be allowed to resign pending the inquiry and final decision thereon of the concerned House and further that the matter would be pursued even after the tainted judge retires.

Until this is done, the delinquent judges would always have the last laugh at the system!Reprieve for Naidu Here comes the news that the High Court at Hyderabad has not only dismissed a petition to add the name of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Chandra Babu Naidu as an accused in what is known as, the cash for vote scam being inquired into by the special court for Anti-Corruption cases but also has ruled that the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter.

Justice T Sunil Chowdhary in his judgment has expressed serious doubts about the authenticity of the tapes purported to be the conversation between an accused and Naidu and held that no case had been made out against the A.P Chief Minister either under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) or under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

While the present favourable judgment may provide temporary relief to Naidu, going by the pronounced resolve of the petitioner to take the matter to the apex court, he will have to defer the celebrations until the final verdict of the apex court.

Allahabad Hc verdict The High Court of Allahabad has fired the first salvo. In a recent judgment the High Court has unequivocally declared that the practice of triple talaq is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental right of equality enshrined in our Constitution. The Court also ruled that personal laws can never override the Constitutional rights.

Several cases challenging the legality of triple talaq have been filed in different High Courts by the victim Muslim women apart from Saira Bano whose similar case has been pending in the Supreme Court. The apex court has been in the process of ascertaining the views of the cross-sections of the society on the subject matter.

Meanwhile, some fringe groups and political parties with just a shade of representation in Parliament have come out openly, some with threatening gestures, in support of the practice of triple talaq.Therefore, now all eyes are set on the Supreme Court to put a full stop to the controversial matter of triple talaq.

Justice Katju relents Former judge of the apex court, Justice Markandeya Katju has at last come to the terms. Perhaps realising his folly and insulting remarks against some sitting Judges of the Supreme Court that culminated into the issuance of notice for the contempt of court against him, Justice Katju has offered to tender an unconditional apology to the court.

This augurs well for both Justice Katju as well as the highest court of our land as the matter would be hopefully finally put
to rest.

By DR H C UPADHYAY