Skip to content

Impeachment of The CJI – Congress Against The Judiciary

Manya writes, the opposition is using CJI impeachment as a political tool. It is a revenge petition
after the falsehood of the Congress party has been established in the Justice Loya
death case.

On the 20th April, 2018, seven opposition parties along with the Congress approached
the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, M Venkaiah Naidu to seek an impeachment against the
chief justice of India, Dipak Misra. Under Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India
states: “A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by
an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament
supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not
less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been
presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of
proved misbehavior or incapacity.” 100 Lok Sabha MPs or 50 Rajya Sabha MPs is the
minimum number of signatories required to issue the notice.This is how the
impeachment of a Judge goes about.
The opposition has laid five charges against Mr. Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India, as it
moves for the impeachment motion on proven acts of misbehavior and on
compromising the independence of the judiciary. Hindustan Times has lifted them very
briefly on the 22nd of April.The first charge relates to an alleged bribery scandal
involving Lucknow-based Prasad Education Trust, which ran a medical college.The
second charge is that the CJI dealt administratively and judicially with a writ petition “in
which he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation.The third charge was
related to the antedated letter through which Chelameswar was informed for the
allotment of case. It was dated November 6. The fourth charge is that the Chief Justice
acquired land when he was an advocate by giving a false affidavit.The Chief Justice
surrendered the land only in 2012 after he was elevated to the Supreme Court despite
the allotment being cancelled years earlier, the notice said.The fifth charge relates to the
“abuse of exercise of power” by the Chief Justice in choosing to send sensitive matters
to particular benches by “misusing his authority as Master of the Roster with the likely
intent to influence the outcome.”

I feel that the opposition is using it as a political tool. It is a revenge petition
after the falsehood of the Congress party has been established in the Justice Loya
death case. It is an endeavor to scare a judge and make an impression on different
judges, that on the off chance that you don’t concur with us, 50 MPs are sufficient for a
reprisal activity. This was the outcome of when the court chaired by Mr. Dipak Misra
rejected petitions seeking an independent investigation into the death of judge BH Loya.
Though the final conclusion has turned out that the impeachment of Mr. Dipak Misra,
Chief Justice of India has been denied since it was concluded to lack substantial
credit.Mr. Naidu held the firm opinion that the motion did not deserve to be admitted .
VP Naidu, to whom the notice was submitted inferable from his situation as Rajya
Sabha Director, yesterday get under way the procedure of meeting on the notice against
the CJI and had exchanges with various protected and legitimate specialists, including
Lawyer General KK Venugopal, and previous best law officer K Parasaran. This was not
the first time that a judge was proposed to be impeached.It had first happened with
Justice V.Ramaswami.

682 Total Views 1 Views Today

One thought on “Impeachment of The CJI – Congress Against The Judiciary

  1. Hardik says:

    The job of the opposition in a democracy is to act as a watch dog and try it’s level best to protect the interests of the public. Thus it has put forward the impeachment motion with 50signatories in the rajya sabha. Hence the chairman had no option and was required to set up an inquiry committee in the case. On the other hand it’s really unfair on the part of democratic values sidelined and rejecting the motion on basis that it lacks proofs. The chairman is not entitled to reject. This shows his bias in protecting his own interests rather than the interests of the office.

Comments are closed.