Though decks were cleared for the impeachment of Calcuttta high court judge Soumitra Sen for alleged misappropriation of `33.22 lakh proceed of a case fund kept in his custody as “court receiver” before his appointment, still questions are being raised about the success of the motion for his ouster considering the past experience.
Justice Sen is the first high court judge to face the impeachment and second in the 60 years independent history of country’s judiciary after former Supreme Court judge
V. Ramaswamy faced the “failed” impeachment motion in 1993 due to the backing out of the entire Congress Parliamentary party.
When the motiion against Justice Ramaswamy was put to vote on May 10, 1993, of the 401 MPs present in the Lok Sabha. Only 196, mainly belonging to Opposition parties voteed in faour of his impeachment while all the 205 Congress MPs had abstained.
As the motion requires to be passed by a two-thirds of the majority of the members present, the motion against Justice Ramaswamy failed. Identical doubts are being raised in the legal circle this time too whether the political parties would actually join hands for the success of the motion.
After the report of the inquiry committee, appointed by Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari, was placed before Parliament on Wednesday, the next step under Section 7 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 requires setting up of a 15-member joint committee of “peers” by the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha Chiarperson with mutual constultation to lay down the procedural rules for conducting the impeachment motion.
As per section 7(2) of the Act, the joint committee “shall consist of 15 memebrs of whom ten shall be nomianted by the Speaker and five by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.” The peers committee would election its own chairperson and “shall have powers to regulate its own procedure,” section 7(3) of the Act says. The peers committee, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions, would make rules relating to the manner of transmission of the impeachment motion adopted by one House to the other House, the manner of presentation of an address to the President for removal of the judge and any other related issue that might come up during discussion, according to Section 7(4). The section further provides for making available every facility to the judge facing the impeachment proceedings, including travel allownce for him whenever he is called by the peers committee, preparing his defence.
The section gives power to the committee to take up any other matter which has to be, or may be provided for by the rules or in respect of which, the panel feels that some additional steps were required as per the law.
The procedure for impeachment of a high court judge is provided in Article 124(4) of the Constitution, which has to be read with proviso (b) to Article 217(1), which states that a judge of a high court shall not be removed from his office except on the grounds of the “misbehaviour” referred in the Constitution.
The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 was meant to facilitate the initiation of the impeachment proceedings as provided in the Constitution for removal of a judge.