Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2011. Case: Justice P.D. Dinakaran Vs Hon'ble Judges Inquiry Committee and Ors.. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appearing Parties: A. Sharan, U.U. Lalit, Sr. Advs., Amit Anand Tiwari, Ashutosh Jha, Vivek Singh, Romy Chako, Nitin Sangra, A. Radhakrishnan, Prashant Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal, Advs. |
| Judges | Case No |
| Issue | Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(8), 3(9), 4, 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5, 6, 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3); Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952; Passports Act, 1967; Food and Drugs Act, 1938; Army Act, 1950 - Section 130; Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947; Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940; Judges (... |
| Citation | JT 2011 (7) SC 425, 2011 (6) SCALE 797, 2011 (4) UJ 2608 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | July 05, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Although, the prayers made in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are for quashing order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") and for grant of a declaration that the proceedings conducted by the Committee on 24.4.2011 are null and void, the tenor of the grounds on which these prayers are founded shows that the Petitioner is also aggrieved by the inclusion of Respondent No. 3- Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India in the Committee under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act.
2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the Petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The notice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the Petitioner and was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. After the motion was admitted, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (hereinafter referred to as, "the Chairman") constituted a Committee comprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Respondent No. 3.
3. Immediately after issue of notification dated 15.1.2010 under Section 3(2) of the Act, the newspapers carried reports suggesting that there was an objection to the inclusion of Respondent No. 3 in the Committee on the ground that he had given legal opinion to the Petitioner in December, 2009. On reading the newspaper reports, Respondent No. 3 sent letter dated 19.1.2010 to the Chairman with the request that he may be relieved from the Committee. Paragraph 2 of that letter reads as under:
Although, there is no conflict of duty and interest, as I did not render any professional service to him, there is a demand from certain quarters for my recusal which you might have noticed in today's Hindustan Times. I am sure you will appreciate that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. Even though I have no official communication as yet about my nomination, it will not be proper for me to function as a member of the Committee in the fact of such objection. I request you to kindly relieve me forthwith and nominate another jurist in my place and oblige.
4. After due consideration, the Chairman declined to accept the request of Respondent No. 3 and asked him to continue as member of the Committee. Thereupon, Respondent No. 3 sent letter dated 21.1.2010 and agreed to accept the assignment. On that very day, Convenor of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform sent a letter to the Vice-President wherein a demand was made in the garb of making suggestion that Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar should recuse from the Committee because he had association with the Petitioner as a Judge of the Madras High Court from 1997 to 2003. Similar suggestion-cum-demand was made qua Respondent No. 3 by stating that the Petitioner had consulted Respondent No. 3 and the latter had advised him to get a commission of inquiry appointed to go into the charges.
5. On being instructed by the Chairman, the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha forwarded a copy of the aforesaid letter to Respondent No. 3. In his response dated 27.1.2010, Respondent No. 3 detailed the background in which the Petitioner had met him on 6.12.2009 and what transpired between them. The relevant paragraphs of that letter read as under:
I would like to place on record as to why Chief Justice Dinakaran met me at my residence with prior appointment on Sunday, the 6th December, 2009 at 02:30 p.m. On Saturday, 28 Nov '09, there was a day-long National Seminar organized by The Bar Association of India under the Presidentship of Shri F.S. Nariman to discuss the problems of the Judiciary, in which the Hon'ble Law Minister also participated briefly in the inaugural session. I am one of the Vice-Presidents. In the course of my speech, I demanded that the Collegium should not proceed further with the recommendation to bring Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran to the Supreme Court and there should be a public inquiry in which Chief Justice Dinkaran should clear himself of the charges levelled against by senior members of the Bar and during the inquiry, he should step down from his office and remain on leave. Many eminent members of the Bar including two former Attorney Generals for India namely, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee and Shri Ashok Desai, a former President of International Bar Association namely Shri RKP Shankar Dass and a former President of Law Asia namely, Shri Anil Divan, who participated in the seminar expressed the same view. Finally, on the request of the President of Bar Association of India, I drafted the Resolution which was touched up by him before it was passed unanimously by the members present.
The speeches made at the seminar, including mine, were reported in the media. In the following week, Chief Justice Dinakaran visited Delhi, presumably to meet the Chief Justice of India, members of the Collegium and others. While in Delhi, he telephoned to me saying that he was surprised that I too believed that he was guilty of the charges levelled against him and he would like to meet me personally. When the Chief Justice of a High Court seeks appointment, it would be improper for any member of the legal profession to refuse it. When he met me on December 06, 2009 I told him that when serious allegations had been made against him by senior members of the Bar practicing at Chennai, Bangalore and Delhi, it was proper that there should be a public inquiry. When he said that he was totally innocent and he could convince me about it, I told him politely that he has to convince those who made the allegations on some basis and that will be possible only in a public inquiry. It was then I suggested that if he was innocent, he should himself invite an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and offer to proceed on leave during the Inquiry. There was neither consultation on the merits of the charges nor any opinion sought or given. He did not seek my professional services for his case. The matter ended there. What I told him in private when he met me at my residence was nothing but what I had earlier demanded in public at the seminar. There is absolutely no question of conflict of interest and duty in such a case. When the Hon'ble Chairman of Rajya Sabha, after due consideration of my offer to quit, requested me to continue, I accepted the request most respectfully as it is a call to public duty from no less a person than the Vice-President of India, which I shall not shirk.
6. On 12.5.2010, the Petitioner suo moto sent a letter to the Vice-President of India and Chairman, Rajya Sabha stating therein that through print and electronic media he had come to know about constitution of the Committee under Section 3(2) of the Act. The Petitioner claimed that the allegations levelled against him were false and baseless. He expressed anguish on being prevented from performing his judicial work and prayed that the inquiry initiated against him may be completed expeditiously and his grievance be redressed at the earliest. For the sake of reference, letter dated 12.5.2010 is reproduced below:
12th May, 2010
The Hon'ble Vice President of India
and Chairman, Rajya Sabha
Parliament
New Delhi
Your Excellency,
May I take this opportunity to present this supplication for kind consideration of Your Excellency.
2. Even though I have learnt through print and electronic media that an impeachment motion has been moved against me under Article 217 read with 124(4) of the Constitution of India before the Rajya Sabha by 75 Hon'ble Members of Parliament, as on date, I have not received any official communication whatsoever in this regard till date.
3. I have also learnt through print and electronic media that a Committee, as contemplated under Section 3(b) of The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, has been constituted by Your Excellency consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India; Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Mr. P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Jurist, in January, 2010, but till date I have not officially heard anything in this connection to enable me to explain my case. Now that Mr. Justice A.R. Dave is elevated to the Supreme Court of India, the Committee requires to be reconstituted.
4. In the meanwhile, the print and electronic media had given wild publicity about the allegations made against me, causing irreparable damage to me and to my family personally and to the constitutional position I am holding. All the allegations are made with an ulterior motive to stall my elevation to the Supreme Court, when the Hon'ble collegium of the Supreme Court recommended my name for elevating me to Supreme Court.
5. It appears that Hon'ble Rajya Sabha Members have been misled by the reports of the District Collector, Thiruvallur, State of Tamil Nadu dated 8th, 10th and 15th October, 2009 stating that myself and my wife have encroached 199.53 acres of lands at Kaverirajapuram, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, State of Tamil Nadu. As the said reports of the District Collector were specifically denied by me as baseless, the matter was referred to a Committee under the Chairmanship of Major General (Dr.) Siva Kumar, Survey of India, Department of Science and Technology, who, ultimately on 15th February, 2010, produced a survey map to my wife, Dr. K.M. Vinodhini Dinakaran, holding that there is no encroachment of any government/public lands either by me or by my wife.
6. All the allegations leveled against me are false and baseless.
7. Myself and my family members are humiliated and...
To continue reading
Request your trial