KRISHNA SWAMI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

The Judgments of the Court were delivered by

VERMA, J. Both these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitu- G tion were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment since they involve for decision substantially the same points. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami is a member of the Tenth Lok Jll Sabha from Tamil Nadu while in Writ Petition No. 140of1992, the petitioner Raj Kanwar is an advocate of District Kamal in Haryana. Both these petitions H are stated to have been filed in public interest and relate to the proceedings

K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[VERMA,J.] 63

for the removal from office of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami of the Supreme A .Court of India initiated by the notice of motion given to the Speaker by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha. It is unnecessary to state further facts herein and it would suffice to say that both these petitions are a sequel to the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others, [1991] 4 SCC 699 - and were filed prior to Writ Petition No. 514of1992-Mrs. B Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union ofIndia & Ors.,- which has been disposed of by us earlier today by a separate judgement pronounced therein giving all relevant facts.

Petitioner Raj Kanwar (in Writ Petition No.140of1992) alleges that the notice of motion by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha, its admission by the C then Speaker of Lok Sabha and constitution of the Inquiry Committee under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 are unconstit11tional being violative of Article 124 (4) of the Constitution. It is also asserted in that Writ Petiton that the judgment in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability is violative of Article 145(3) of the Constitution and hence void ab initio. On this basis, the relief sought in Writ Petition No. 140 ofl992 is as under: D

"(a) issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing

(1) the notice of motion for presention of an address to the President for the removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramas- E wami of the Supreme Court of India;

(2) its admission by the then Speaker of Lok Sabha and

(3) the formation of the Inquiry Committee under the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 as being void ab-initio. F In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the petitioner M. Krishna Swami claims sufficient interest to file the writ petition as a member of the Tenth Lok Sabha and as an advocate of Madras known to Mr. Justice V. Ramas- wami for long. In this petition, it is alleged that certain illegalities in the G procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee prejudicial to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami have rendered the inquiry invalid. On the basis of the il- legalities in procedure, alleged in the petition, the relief sought is for quashing the proceedings of the Committee as invalid. This is the alterna- tive prayer in the petition while the primary relief claimed in the petition is subtantially the same as in the other petition to quash the notice of H

64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A motion admitted by the Speaker of the Ninth Lok Sabha and the charges framed by the Committee against Mr. Justice V. Ramasw:uni. Another prayer made to hold that the Inquiry Committee is disqualified to conduct the inquiry was given up at the hearing by Shri Sibal accepting the position that the allegation of bias against the Committee could be examined only at the instance of Mr. Justice V. Ramswami who is not even a party in B either of these two writ petitions. In substance,, the primary relief claimed in both these writ petitions is for reconsideration of the earlier Constitution Bench decision .in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and for accept- ing the view expressly rejected in the majority opinion therein. In Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992, the alternative prayer for quashing the proceed- C ings of the Inquiry Committee on the ground of illegality in the procedure adopted by it for conducting the inquiry is alleged to be based on the decision in Sub- Committee on Judicial Accountability which held that the proceeding relating to inquiry conducted by the Committee is statutory in nature subject to judicial review. D Subsequently, on conclusion of the investigation by the Inquiry Com- mittee, Smt. Sarojini Ramswami, wife of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, filed Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992 praying for a direction to the Inquiry Committee to supply a copy of its report to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami before submitting it to the Speaker under Section 4(2) of the Judges E (Inquiry) Act, 1968 to enable the learned Judge to seek judicial review of the finding of 'guilty', if any, against him made in the report of the Committee. We have disposed of that writ petition by a separate judgment pronounced earlier today. We are, therefore, confining the decision of these petitions only to the points raised herein which survive for decision.

F We had concluded the hearing of these writ petitions before the hearing was commenced in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, but at the request of Shri Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 149 as well as in Writ Petition No. 514, we deferred the decision in these writ petitions till now. In Writ Petition No. 149, we have G heard Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner, the Attorney General of India for the Union of India and Shri F.S. Nariman for the Inquiry Committee. In addition, we have also heard Shri Shanti Bhushan and Shri Jitendra Sharma who represented the interveners viz. Sub-committee on Judicial Account- ability and Supreme Court Bar Association. Raj Kanwar, petitioner in Writ H Petition No. 140 of 1992 was directed to file the written submissions which

K.SWAMiv. U.O.I.[VERMA,J.] 65

have been considered by us. We considered it unnecessary to hear petitioner Raj Kanwar orally also in addition to his written submissions since his case in the same which was urged by Shri Kapil Sibal as one of his contentions and to some extent advanced also by the Attorney General of India. The constraint of time because of which the hearing in these matter was required to be concluded early impelled us to adopt this course, particularly on account of the fact that Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992 was tagged on to Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 which was freated as the main matter by order dated 23.3.1992.

It may now be mentioned that Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 came up for hearing first before a Division Bench of three learned Judges which by its order dated 27 .2.1992 on hearing Shri Kapil Sibal for the petitioner mentioned his contentions and directed as under:

"Having regard to the importance of the questions raised in the petition, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the learned Chief Justice of India for constituting a Constitution Bench to hear this petition."

' These contentions were mainly for reconsideration of the earlier Constitu- tion Bench decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Acountability. This order is reported in JT 1992 (2) SC 63. This is I.ow this petition came to be listed before a Constitution Bench for being heard by us. The order in Writ Petition No. 140 of 1992 for tagging with Writ Petition No. 149 of 1992 was made thereafter on 23.3.1992 because o( the identity of subject-matter of the two petitions. F

When the hearing commenced before us, the question of main- tainability of these writ petitions for the reliefs claimed herein in the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni and tenability of the plea of recon- sideration of the earlier decision at the intance of these petitioners who were not parties thereto and are not directly affected thereby arose for G consideration. On 6.5.1992 after Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner had been heard for some time on the preliminary question relating to maintainability of the petition, he sought time 'to consider further whether the petitioner should move an application for impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party'. The matters were H

66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l1992J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A adjourned to the next day at the request of Shri Sibal. On 7.5.1992, Shri Sibal informed us that the petitioner does not want to implead Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party and that he had decided to pursue the writ petition as framed in its present form. In the other writ petition (W.P. No. 140} also, Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami is not a party and the petitioner's B stand is the same; and, therefore, the question of maintainability of these writ petitions for the reliefs claimed herein in the absence of the Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as party is common to both of them. These matters were, therefore, heard on the question of maintainability indicating that in case these petitions are held to be maintainable for the reliefs claimed C herein in the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party, then the matters may be heard further on merits.

We have reached the conclusion that both these petitions must be dismissed on this preliminary ground and, therefore, the question of hear- ing these petitions further does not arise. D In view of the fact that the petitioners in both these writ petitions have persisted in pursuing the writ petitions without impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party, in spite of ample opportunity given by us for the purpose at the commencement of the hearing and even thereafter till its conclusion, there is now no question of giving any further opportunity to the petitioners for this purpose. Shri Sibal took the definite stand on instructions of the petitioner that Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni would not he impleaded as a party in the writ petition and that the Court itself may give him notice if it so desires. We do not find any reason why the Court should suo motu issue notice to Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni when the petitioner persisted in not impleading him even though the reliefs claimed are for the benefits of the learned Judge alone. Even otherwise we do not consider it appropriate to examine any of the questions raised in these petitions at the instance of these petitioners in view of our decision in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, the learned Judge himself having not chosen to do so. G There can be no doubt and it is rightly not disputed that the decision on merits of the points raised in these writ petitions, assuming they could be considered and decided on merits in these circumstances, would directly affect the interest of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswarni in the proceedings for his removal from office which he is facing. In case the decision on merits is

K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [VERMA,J.] 67

adverse to the interest of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, it would be open to him to contend that he is not bound by the decision to which he is not a party irrespective of the merit of that contention: Moreover, there appears to be no cogent reason to examine the merits of the points raised in the petitions professedly for the benefit of Mr. Jusiice V. Ramaswami when the learned Judge himself has not chosen to raise the same. B It was strenuously urged by Shri Sibal, supported by the learned Attorney General, as well as the petitioner Raj Kanwar that declaration of law on the subject can be made in the absence of the learned judge as a party with which declaration he would be bound; and that in view of the high office held by the learned Judge, it was consistent with the dignity of C that office that he should not be a petitioner or even a party in a case filed in the Court in which he himself is a Judge. We are unable to appreciate or accept this argument.

The points raised in these petitions in the context of clauses (4) and (5) D of Article 124 of the Constitution and the law enacted under Article 124(5) are bound to arise only in the context of a holder of the high office of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and at a time when he faces proceedings for his removal so that the decision thereon is bound to affect the interest of the concerned Judge. If the occasion for requiring a judicial adjudication arises in this context at a time when a particular Judge is facing proceedings for his E removal from office as in the present case, the reason advanced by learned counsel for not even irnpleading him as a party in the petition appears to be tenuous. Anyone facing such a proceeding and wanting to challenge it has to do it himself. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the decision on merits of the points raised in these petitions and, therefore, the likelihood of a con- F clusion adverse to the interest of the learned Judge being a possibility, an effective adjudication of the same in his absence is not feasible which alone is a sufficient reason to decline consideration of the points raised in the petitions in these circumstances. We may mention that the learned Judge was a party in the earlier proceedings-Sub-Committee on!udicia/Acountabi/ity v, Union of India and Others, [1991)4SCC699. G

Shri Sibal submitted that the order dated 27.2.1992 by a Division Bench directing that the papers be placed before the learned Chief Justice of India for constituting a Constitution Bench to hear this petition after mentioning the contentions of Shri Sibal requires that we must decide those H

68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A contentions on merits anc!' we cannot dispose of the writ petition on this preliminary point .without going into the merits of those contentions. Without e.xpressly saying so, the suggestion of Shri Sibal is that we have not option in the matter in view of the aforesaid order dated 27.2.1992 by a Division Bench except to decide these contentions on merits. We may here mention that the contentions of Shri Sibal mentioned in the order dated 27.2.1992 arc mainly for reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Com- mittee on Judicial Acountability and amount to reagitating the very same points which were considered and rejected by majority in the earlier Constitution Bench decision. Apart from the question whether recon- sideration of that decision can be sought in this manner, we have no doubt that the order dated 27.2.1992 made by the Division Bench could not bind even that Bench much less a larger Bench in the. manner suggested by Shri Sibal when the reference to a Constitution Bench is to hear the petition as a whole and not merely decide certain questions of the law without even issuing Rule. In our opinion, the course we have adopted was available to that Division Bench itself even after making the order dated 27 2.1992 if it had heard the matter thereafter instead of referring the petition for hearing by a Constitution Bench. This contention does not merit any further consideration.

The two main preliminary points which arise in petitions are: (1) E Tenability of the plea for reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India and Others, [1991] 4 SCC 699 - at the instance of the petitioners; and (2) Maintainability of the petitions for reliefs claimed for the benefit of Mr. Justice V. Rarnaswami without impleadi1.1g him as a party. F We have already indicated the impropriety of considering and decid- ing the question of grant of reliefs claimed in the petitions for the benefit of Mr. Justice V. Rarnaswarni in his absence even as a party. Ordinarily, it is the person aggrieved and directly affected who must seek the relief himself unless disabled from doing so for a good reason which permits someone else to seek the relief on his behalf. In that situation also the claim is made in substance by the person affected even though the form be different and it is so stated expressly. The only reason given for the learned Judge not doing so, by Shri Sibal, has been considered by us earlier and not found sufficient to support his submission. We may also mention that in a similar situation Mr. Justice Murphy of the High Cour.t of Australia,

K. SWAMI"· U.0.l. [VERMA,J.) 69

the apex court of that country, while facing proceedings for his removal from office, had brought an action for injunction to restrain the proceed- ings against him in his own name. The judgment of the High Court of Australia in that matter is Murphy v. Lush and Others, [1986] 65 ALR 651. That case is referred only to indicate that the grievance in a similar situation was made by the concerned Judge of the apex court himself and not by someone else even without impleading him. We may also add the subsequently in Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, the petition was filed by the wife of the learned Judge wherein the learned Judge gave a writing to the effect that the writ petition was in substance for and on his behalf with the decision in which he would be bound. There is nothing on record in these petitions to indicate a similar stand by the learned Judge. Moreover, if the c subsequent writ petition for his benefit is filed. by his wife in this manner, there is no reason why the learned Judge would not adopt the same method to raise the points involved in these petitions, if he was so advised.

The plea for reconsideration of the earlier judgment in Sub-Commit- D tee on Judicial Accountability at the instance of the present petitioners is made placing strong reliance on A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another, (1988] 2 SCC 602. In our opinion, the decision inAntulay is of no assistance to the petitioner in the present case. In the first place, it is not the learned Judge Mr. Justice V. Rarnaswarni who has asked for reconsideration of that decision, assuming he could do so by a petition .under Article 32 of the E Constitution instead of by a review petition, since Mr. Justice V. Rarnas- wami was a party in that matter. On the other hand, it was Antulay himself who had challenged by a petition under Article 32 the decision rendered against him by this Court. In addition, the settled principles for recon- sideration of a decision which have been once again reiterated in Union of F India and Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. etc., [1989] 2 SCC 754- clearly indicate that the plea for reconsideration is not to be entertained merely because the petitioner chooses to reagitate the points concluded by the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability. In The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, [1965] G 2 SCR 908, it was pointed out that interest of public good should be the guide and there must be· compelling reasons for recosideration of a decision of this Court for public good. We do not find any good much less public good being served in reopening those questions which are concluded by a decision of the Constitution Bench in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountablity particularly when the plea is not even made by the concerned H

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A Judge himself and the attempt to reagitate those points is related to the same learned Judge faciiig the same proceedings for his removal. Antulay's case is also distinguishable for the reason that therein the result of the earlier decision against him challenged by Antulay in the petition under Article 32 had the effect of conferring jurisdiction on a Court contrary to the specific statutory provision; and the error in the earlier judgment to this effect was considered to be sufficient for Antulay himself to challenge that decision by an independent writ petition instead of a review petition. Moreover, judgment of Mishra, J. as well as that of Mukharji, J. as their Lordships were then, give a clear indication that the decision therein was not intended to be a precedent and was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case. This distinction is sufficient to hold that Antulay does not permit these petitioners to claim reconsideration of the earlier decision in these circumstances.

Shri Sibal contended that the petitioners not being a party to the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability, the remedy of review of that decision is not available to them. In our opinion, this argument instead of supporting their claim for seeking reconsideration of the judgment, actually negatives it. If they are not entitled to seek review, as they were not parties in the earlier proceeding in which the judgment was rendered and the person directly affected remains the same learned E Judge who was party then but not now, these petitioners cannot have the right which they seek to assert when the context remains the same. Moreover, we deem it inappropriate to consider these questions at their instance in these circumstances.

F The written submissions of petitioner Raj Kanwar are in substance no addition to the points urged by Shri Sibal and, therefore, do not require any separate consideration. We might, however, mention that petitioner Raj Kanwar persisted in claiming to be also heard orally in additioo, which we refused for the reasons given. We must add that the petitiooer Raj Kanwar appears to be a busy body who has filed the petition for M G ostensible public purpose. He has described himself as an advocate prac tising in the District of Karna! without indicating the reasoo for his persisl· ence in repeating the same challenge in his individual capacity when Shiii Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate has argued at length the point he raises, cm behalf of a Member of Parliament the Advocate of Madras claiming a H personal relationship with the learned Judge for long and the Supreme

K.SWAMiv. U.0.1.[VERMA,J.] 71

Court Bar Association and the Sub-committee on Judicial Accountability A have appeared as interveners before us.

We would have refrained for making these observations but for the fact that petitioner Raj Kanwar after the conclusion of the hearing in which he was permitted to file written submissions which we have taken into account, chose to adopt the extraordinary course of an application to the Chief Justice of India to make the wholly unjustified grievance that he was not orally heard. As an advocate he should have known that such an application is untenable apart from being misconceived. He should have apreciated that public interest was served better by early conclusion of the hearing rather than its prolongaiion to enable every individual, who so desired, to address us orally. We are also of the opinion that in a matter of this kind, it was not only unnecessary but also inappropriate to permit a the hearing being converted into debate for participation of every in- dividual in the name of public interest. We do not think that the persistence of Raj Kanwar is in public interest. D The view we are taking of the role of petitioners, Raj Kanwar, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140 of 1992 is in consonance with the decision in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1981) supp. SCC 87, wherein this aspect was considered at length. In his petition as well as in written submissions all that he said was to seek relief on merits on the points raised which are E concluded by the earlier Constitution Bench decision without even showing as to how he is entitled to make the Claim. Later he added that the absence of the Judge is immaterial and the points be decided without any relief being granted to anyone. F The basis of the right claimed by the petitioner, Raj Kanwar, has to be found in some principle to amount to the right of the kind he claims. There is no special injury to him alleged and, therefore, the right he claims is no better than that available to every other advocate in the country. If the mere membership of the Bar can provide the foundation for the right which Raj Kanwar asserts to maintain a separate petition then on principle G every advocate in the country would be entitled to file a separate petition, and as he claims also entitled to be heard orally even though it may only be at best repetition of the same arguments which Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate advanced at length. Since it cannot be visualised that every Advocate as an individual can claim such a right in public interest, it cannot H

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A be doubted that the claim made by petitioner, Raj Kanwar to this effect and his insistence on being orally heard when he had nothing additional to contribute, as is evident from his petition and the written arguments, is clearly misconceived. It is necessary that this tendency is curbed in public interest to avoid wastage of courts' time and abuse of its process.

B It is beneficial in this context to reproduce. certain portions from the decision in S.P. Gupta. The opinion of Bhagwati, J. as he then was, on this aspect reflects the opinion of the Bench and he stated as under:"

"But we must be careful to see that the member of the c public, who approaches the court in cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused by politicians and others ....... .

D xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Before we part with this general discussion in regard to locus standi, there is one point we would like to em- phasise and it is, that cases may arise where there is undoubtedly public injury by the act or omission of the E State or a public authority but such act or omission also causes a specific legal injury to an individual or to a specific class or group of individuals. In such cases, a member of the public having sufficient interest can cer- tainly maintain an action challenging the legality of such act or omission, but if the person or specific class or group of persons who are primarily injured as a result of such act or omission, do not wish to claim any relief and accept such act or omission willingly and without protest, the member of the public who complains of a secondary public injury cannot maintain the action, for the effect of entertaining the action at the instance of such member of the public would be to foist a relief on the person or specific class or group of persons primarily injured, which they do not want." (Paras 24-25, pages 219-220}

H xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

K.SWAMiv. U.0.1.[VERMA,J.] 73

"We have taken a board and liberal view in regard to locus standi and held that any public-spirited> advocate acting bona fide and not for private gain or personal profit or political motivation or any other oblique consideration, may file a writ petition in the High Court challenging an unconstitutional or illegal ·action of the Government or any other constitutional authority prejudicially affecting the administration of justice and in such writ petition he may claim relief not for himself personally but for those who are the direct victims of such unconstitutional or illegal action, because granting such relief to them would repair the injury caused to administration of justice. But c the persons for whom the relief is suoght must be ready to accept it; they must appear and make it known that they are claiming such relief; it cannot be thrust upon them unless they,,wish it.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx D

The Court does not decide issues in the abstract. It undertakes determination of a controversy provided it is necessary in order to give relief to a party and if no relief can be given because none is sought, the Court cannot take E upon itself a theoretical exercise merely for the purpose of deciding academic issues, howsoever impoltant they may be. The Coult cannot embark upon an inquiry whether there was any misuse or abuse of power in a particular case, unless relief is sought by the person who is said to have been wronged by such misuse or abuse of power. The Court F cannot take upon itself the role of a commission of inqniry - a knight errant roaming at will with a view to destroying evil wherever it is found."

(Para 57, pp. 264-265) G Venkataramiah, J. stated thus :

/t has, however, to be 1nade clear that it cannot be said 11

that lawyers only because they have a right to practise in a court have 'locus standi' tn file petitions in respect of every H

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A matter concerning judges, courts and administration of justice. Tllere are many such matters in which they have no 'locus standi' to ask for relief....

But for the active participation of these two persons, the petitions regarding reliefs concerning them individual- B ly would have probably become liable to be dismissed on the ground that the lawyers have no 'locus standi' to make these prayers.'

(Para 989, page 773)

c (emphasised supplied)

In S.P. Gupta while widening the 'locus standi' in matters of public interest, the limitations to prevent abuse of the process of court were also indicated and the case of only those judges was examined who were parties D ~fore the Court.

We have dealt with this aspect at some length and also referred to the decision in S.P. Gupta since in the present context it has become necessary to reiterate the same to disabuse the mind of persons, like Raj Kanwar, who insist that they have such a right in the abstract. Petitioner E Raj Kanwar could have served the public interest better if he had assisted Shri Kapil Sibal in the main petition, assuming he had something additional to say. The assertion of petitioner Raj Kanwar that he has any such right in the abstract is misconceived.

F Even though the hearing in these petitions had concluded before we heard Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992, yet we deferred the decision of these writ petitions till now on the express request made by Shri Kapil Sibal not to decide these matters before deciding Writ Petition No. 514 of 1992.

We add that on a reconsideration of the matter in the light of the exposition of law made by Brother K. Ramaswamy in his separate opinion circulated to us, we regret our inability to concur with him in the area of his disagreement. On the points decided by us, leaving open the points which do not arise at this stage for our consideration for the reasons we have given, preferring to follow the salutary practice of not deciding any question, much less a constituional one, unless it is necessary to do so, we

K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY,J.] 75

would prefer to reserve our opinion on the remaining questions for the occassion, if any, in the future when they arise for decision.

For the aforesaid reasons, both these writ petitions fail and are dismissed on the above preliminary grounds without going into the points raised on merits herein which do not arise for consideration at the instance of the petitioners at this stage on the conclusion we have reached. In view of our conslusion to dismiss these writ petitions, it is unnecessary to decide the pending I.As., including those for impleadment, which are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

K. RAMASWAMY, J. I have bad the benefit of reading the draft judgment proposed by my learned brother Verma, J. With all due regards and personal respect to my learned and esteemed brethren, it is my -misfortune for my inability to tread their path. Therefore, I have chosen to plough my lone farrow, since the matter is of great significance and the questions to be decided bear wider significance. D

The short sift of the facts pertinent to the points posed are that on February 27, 1991 a notice of motion signed by 108 members of the 9th Lok Sabha was presented to the Speaker to initiate proceedings against Hon'ble Mr. Justice Veeraswarni Ramaswami, a sitting Judge of this Court, E alleging commission of financial irregularities in the discharge of his ad- ministrative duties as Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Speaker admitted the motion on March 12, 1991 and constituted a Committee comprising of Sri Justice P.B. Sawan~ a sitting Judge of this Court, as Presiding Officer and Sri Justice P.D. Desai, the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court and Sri Justice 0. Chinnappa Reddy, a retired F Judge of this Court, a distinguished jurist as members under Section 3(2) of Judges {Enquiry) Act 41 of 1968 (for short 'the Act'). The 9th Lok Sabha was dissolved on March 13, 1991. The Sub-Committee on Judicial Account- ability filed a_ writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and a host of writ petitions ensued, which were disposed of by a Constitution G Bench reported in the Sub-Committee 011 Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, [1991] 2 SCR 741 ' for short 'SCJA' in which this Court declared that the motion admitted by the Speaker of the 9th Lok Sablla is valid; his action under the Act is outside the Parliament; it did not lapse and directed the Union of India to notify his constituting the Committee under Section H

76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A 3(2) of the Act. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued by the Central Government. The Secretary to the Committee issued notice in Form I of the Judges (Enquiry) Rules, 1969 (for short 'the Rules') on January 14, 1992 communicating definite charges and requested Mr. Justice V. Rarnas- wami to put in his written statement of defence on or before February 4, B 1992 and to appear either in person or through counsel on February 10, 1992 along with his evidence. At request, George Fernandoz, Jaswanth Singh, SCJA and the petitioner were permitted only to assist the Advocate of the Committee to prove the case against the Judge and to keep secracy of the facts and the proceedings, The petitioner's insistence to prove the innocence of the Judge was not acceded to. So he filed the Writ Petition.

When the matter came up the admiSsion- before a Bench of three Judges on February 27, 1992 to which one of ns (KJ. Reddy, J.) was member, having heard the learned counsel Sri Sibal, formulated the follow- ing five questions, and having regard to the importance of those questions raised, referred the matter to the Constitution Bench.

(1) Sub-section (1) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, mandates that the Speaker of the House of People shall either admit or refuse to admit a motion for presenting an address to the President of India for the removal of a E Judge of the Supreme Court of India only 'after' consider- ing such materials, if any, as may be available to him and failure to comply with t)ie said sine-qua-non, viz. con- sideration of available material before admitting the mo- tion, vitiates his dec;ision for non-application of mind. In F the present case since the then· Speaker, respondent No. 3 is not shown to have applied his mind to the available material before admitting the motion, his decision to admit the motion and constitute the Committee compris- ing respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is unsustainable in law.

G (2) Sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, invests the Speaker with the power to constitute a Committee for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which the removal of the Judge is sought, but such power must be exercised consistent with the established practice and norms and consistent with the

K. SWAMI v. U.O.l. (RAMASWAMY, J.] 77

idea of independence of judiciary, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India. In the present case all the three Committee members were directly approached by the Speaker, respondent No.3, who thereby departed from the well established practice and hence the constitution of the Committee clearly vitiated in law. B (3) Although sub-section {1) of Section 4 of the Judges {Inquiry) Act empowers the Committee to regulate its own procedure in making the investigation, which proce- dure must be consistent with the rules of natural justice, the committee has not outlined any procedure for inves- c tigation and the procedure it has hitherto follow~d in framing charges without undertaking any preliminary in- vestigation to ascertain if there is sufficient prima fade material for framing a charge and in refusing to provide the concerned Judge with copies of documents sought on unsustainable grounds and in permitting third parties to assist the Committee through its counsel against the Judge and in not permitting the petitioner to assist the Commit- tee to establish the innocence of the Judge, the Committee has completely mutilated the 'sui juris' character of the investigation and thereby rendered the proceedings illegal and wholly inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

(4) If the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 3 are read to mean that they empower the Committee to frame charges without holding a preliminary investigation at which the concerned Judge may participate, the said two sub-sections would be rendered ultra vires Article 124 (5) of the Constitution.

(5) When the Constitution Bench decided the case Sub- G Committee on Judicial Accountablity v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 699 the proceeding which took place in the House of People were not before it, which proceed- ings now available, clearly indicate that the Speaker him- self was alive to the fact that he was constitutionally H

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A obliged to place the notice before the House and his decision on the admission of the notice was to depend on the collective wisdom of the House.

In view of this facutal aspect reflected in the proceedings of the House, the decision of the Constitution Bench B needs reconsideration.

The Secretary of the Committee and the interveners exchanged their respective pleadings and placed evidence on record. We have had the benefit of the arguments of all the learned counsel and also requested them to give exhaustively written arguments on all points raised in the matter. Accordingly they have done. I have given my anxious consideration to all the contentions and the materials placed in support thereof.

The substratum of the petitioner's pleas and ably argued by his learned Senior counse~ Sri Kapil Sibal are that Sri Rabi Roy, the Hon'ble Speaker of the 9th Lok Sabha, the third respodnent herein, did not have with him all the mateiral matrix before admitting the motion of remove the Judge, nor applied his mind to the material to find prima facie case, which is a condition precedent under the Act and the Rules, to be consistent with E Art. 124 of the Constitution of India. He should have conducted prelimi- nary enquiry in that behalf. The record doe.s not bear out any reason. Non-application of the mind or bereft of reasons smacked the exercise of jurisdiction by the Speaker to admit the motion and at any rate it is illegal. :rJlls court on the ealier occassion did not have the advantage of the record now available to deal with this aspect. The petitioner being a non-party is F not bound by the Constitution Bench Judgement which requires fresh look in the light of the above material. The constitution of the Committee without consulation and nomination by the Chief Justice of India became illegal. The enquiry, not having been preceded by any investigation, is ultra vires of Article 124(5) of the Constitution. If it is otherwise, sub-secs. (3) G & ( 4) of section 3, section 4(1), etc. of the Act are ultra vires or Art. 124 (4). He further contends that the Committee cannot be a prosecutor and a Judge. Before framing defmite charges, it has to conduct an investigation into the allegations after giving reasonable opportunity to the learned Judge. The Committee did not adopt that procedure. Instead, it framed H charges which lack factual foundation nor are supported by unimpeachable

K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 79

evidence. There is dichotomy between investigation and enquiry. In the. A investigation, the committee, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Judge, was to find whether from the material the charges could be framed and if it finds in the negative, the need to conduct the enquiry does not arise and it should report accordingly to the Speaker who would drop further action. Only after the investigation, finding that there is prima facie B material or evidence, definite charges shall be framed, followed by an enquiry conducted against the learned Judge after giving reasonable op- portunity. The enquiry shall be confmed only between the learned Judge and the committee. The Advocate appointed to assist the committee cannot proceed as if he is a prosecutor against the learned Judge. The C committee did not inform the Judge before hand as to what procedure it seeks to follow in this matter. The committee committed manifest illegality in permitting Messrs. George Fernandoz and Jaswanth Singh and the SCJA to participate as persicutors against the learned Judge. They have no locus standi either to participate or adduce evidence against the Judge. The specious plea of purity of judicial administration is an actuated pretence D to malign the Judge. The evidence establishes that the advocate for the committee along with the advocates of the Members of Parliament and the SCJA and prior consultations and in fact tutored the witnesses before the proceedings commenced which is repugnant to the dignity of judicial process impinging upon Article 21 as an unfair procedure. The Committee E itself cross-examined the witnesses that answered favourably to the Judge. On the basis of the material placed before the court, he argued that the evidence does not establish any of the charges levelled against the learned Judge. His conduct to attract Article 124(4) of the Constitution and the Act as misbehaviour impinging upon the integrity of the learned Judge F must be grave but not the trivial administrative lapses to initiate proceed- ings for removal or an enquiry thereon. Diverse circumstances available before the committee would not establish any misbehaviour by the learned Judge. Sri Altemesh Rein, Advocate-intervener, conteded that the alleged misbehaviour was committed while discharging his duties as Chief Justice G of Punjab and Haryana High Court; as per Article 217 (1) (C), on his elevation to this Court, they ceased to be of any relevance for an investiga- tion under Article 124 (5); the Act and the Rules, the action does not touch upon his misbehaviour as a Judge of this court which alone is germane. So the motion for removal and consequent enquiry are devoid of jurisdiction H

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A and authority of law.

Sri G. Ramaswamy, the learned Attorney General contends that the Union of India did not file any counter, nor is interested in taking any particular stand in the matter. As Attorney General, on notice, contends that in a public interest litigation the essential requirement is that the petitioner must be genuinely interested to seek declaration of public law. Only persons like busy body or actuated with malice, should h~ve no locus standi. The petitioner, being an advocate and a Member of Parliament, gets sufficient interest to maintain the writ petition. The omission to implead the learned Judge, though ideal to have him impleaded, does not become an handicap to declare the law which would bind the learned Judge as well. But the relative merits of the dispute personal to the learned Judge should not be considered, nor be given relief. For example in respect of the relief by the petitioner concerning the alleged bias by the committee, the writ petition is not' maintainable at his behest. The procedure for investigation and proof of misbehaviour under Art. 124(5) of tlte Constitution and Secs. 4(1) and 3(3) of the Act are distinct and different. The former refers to inquisitorial and the later partakes of adversarial. Section 3(3) of the Act occupies the field of adversary process whereas Sec. 4(1) encompasses both. "Investigation" acquired distinct connotation under Item 8 of the List I of 7th Schedule to collect evidence to facilitate enquiry or trial. In support thereof he placed reliance on the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the investigation the authority is empowered, without predisposition, to sift the evidence and the enquiry confines to the field of proof of the charge for the determination of the guilt or innocence and to record a finding in that behalf. This would be done as an independent F Tribunal or as Court after giving opportunity to the contending parties to adduce evidence. Its endeavour is to bring out the truth and not to bolster up the case. The counsel for the Tribunal has no role to play in proof of misbehaviour against the Judge. There can be neither a counsel for nor witnesses of the Committee. It is enjoined to adjudicate the credibility of evidence and reach its conclusions of guilt or innocence but not to act as prosecutor to prove the case against the Judge. The correctness of the procedure adapted by the Committee hinges upon the declaration of law in this behalf by this court for which the learned Judge is neither a necessary, nor a proper party. Even otherwise in his absence also the declaration would be given which binds him. No third party other ti.an the learned Judge and the Advocate appointed under Section 3(9) of the Act

K. SWAMJ v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY, J.] 81

has a right to participate or adduce evidence during the investigation and enquiry done by the committee. The decision in SCJA case requires reconsideration. Even otherwise the declaratory reliefs of public law could 1 be made by this court. l Sri Nariman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commit- B tee with equal ability fairly contended that the petitioner has neither locus standi nor the writ petition maintainable to review the earlier decision. The motion for removal of the learned Judge is a political process. Though the Speaker is a statutory authority, he does not act like a judicial or ad- ministrative authority to record reasons before admitting the motion. He is a constitutional functionary of high authority. The fact that he admitted C the motion does indicate that he had applied his mind and found prima facie grounds to admit the motion for removal of the learned Judge. Accordingly, he admitted the motion and constituted the committee. It is neither necessary for him to make prior investigation nor give notice to the Judge. It is not mandatory that he should consult the Chief Justice of India. D It is his discretion. The consitution of the Committee without consulting the Chief Justice of India is not illegal. The committee is not required to make investigation befor~ framing definite charges. The committee is to consider the record sent by the Speaker and if it found prima facie evidence or material to frame defmite charge , or it would be open to the committee to do so and issue notice in Form I to foe Learned Judge. Before framing the charges, the learned Judge is not entitled to any notice or opportunity. Only after communication of the charges in Form I, the learned Judge is entitled to submit his written statement of defence and also his adducing evidence in support thereof. He is also entitled to legal assistance as well as to be heard. Investigation and enquiry contemplated under the Act and the Rules is overlapping and synonymous. Even if the learned Judge opts to remain exparte, the committee is obligated to conduct the enquiry into the definite charges and the Advocate be appointed to assist the committee to prove the charges framed against the learned Judge by adducing evidence. The committee consists of eminent members having long judicial experience and impeccable integrity and erudite. The proceedings before the committee are in the nature of a trial of a civil suit in which the learned Judge or his counsel and the Advocate alone are entitled to participate and lead evidence. Permission to third party to participate in the proceedings flows from the.discretion of the committee to adopt its own procedure and in exercise thereof limited right to participate in tJ.e enquiry was given to H

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A third parties. The committee has to submit its report recording find- ing/findings whether or not the charge or charges has/have been proved. If the committee finds that charges have been proved, then the political process under Article 124(4) again would revive if the committee finds that the charge have not been proved, then the Speaker has to drop the proceedings in terms of the Act and the Rules. The petitioner cannot seek the reliefs asked for in the writ petition. The Judge alone is entitled to impugne the proceedings or claim for reasonable opportunity. Since the learned Judge opted to remain ex parte, the petitioner annot challege the proceedings since any adverse findings given by this court would not bind the Judge as he is not eo nominee party to the writ petition. He also further contended that neither the decision in SOA case is open to be reviewed nor the petitioner has locus to do so. Sri Jitendra Sharma, Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association adopted the contentions of Sri N ariman. Sri Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior counsel for SOA, while supporting Sri Nariman, further argued with ususal vehemence that they are bona fide interested to uphold the dignity of the court and the efficacy of the rule of law; they are also interested that the learned Judge should come out unscathed at the earliest; their locus was upheld by this court, and they are interested to bring on record the true and correct facts. The permission granted b~ the Committee is not illegal. The members of the Parliament having moved the motion are interested to prove the allegations. E The main question that needs adjudication is whether the petitioner has locus to maintain the writ petition. Indisputably, the petitioner is an advocate of Madras High Court Bar and he is also a Member of the parliament. There- fore, it cannot be said that he is a pro bono publico. His genuine interest to uphold the dignity of the judiciary is not doubted The petitioner sought time to implead the learned Judge as a party respodnent to the \\Tit petition. But ultimately, it was given up. By itself it would not detract, if the relief/reliefs othe.rwise would be considered and given. The facts present interpretaiton of the constitution, the scope of the Speaker's power to admit the motion to remove a Judge, his dignity coupled with the independence of the judiciary, the pivotal organ of the State. Some of the questions raised are offar-reaching importance. As a member of the Bar, he would definitely be interested in settling the law of the procedure to remove a Judge of higher judiciary under Article 124(5); read 'vith the Act and the Rules. Moreover, the procedure for the removal of a Judge is sui generis. The discretion left to the committee under section 4(1) of the Act to regulate its own procedure to investigate into

K.SWAM!v. U.0.L[RAMASWAMY,J.] 83

the definite charges against the learned Judge bears vital importance. It is trite to burden the judgment with bead roll of precedents but suffice to reiterate that any member of the public having sufficienfinterest could maintain an action for judicial redress from public inquiry arising out of the breach of public duty or of law and seek enforcement of such public, constitutional or legal duty. Strict rule oflocus was relaxed and personal right enforcement was whittled down. The ratio in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, [1982] 2 SCR 365 at p. 530 D to Fis an authority on this score. In the public interest, therefore, any person genuinely interested to uphold independence of the judiciary and the law would get sufficient interest and acquires locus to seek to lay down public law in that behalf. The writ petition, therefore, should not be thrown out on the ground that the petitioner lacks locus to litigate the lis. But every Advocate C need not be heard which would be only a surplusage at the hands of Raj Kanwar. In that behalf I agree with the view of brother Verma, J.

The question then is whether the writ petition is by way of a review of the earlier decision. It is settled law that a judgment of this Court cannot D be impugned or its correctness assailed by way of another writ petition on any ground whatever. In N.S, Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, [1966] 3 SCR 745 nine Judges Bench held that the judicial order is not liable to be questioned in a writ petition. The same view was reiterated by another Seven Judges' Bench in A.R. Antulay v. N.S. Naik, [1988] l Suppl. SCR 1. It would thus be held that the correctness of the judgment of this court in E SCJA's case is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction.

Sri Kapil Sibal, therefore, contends that the petitioner is not assailing the correctness of that judgment but he is placing another facet touching the jurisdiction of the Speaker, in admitting the motion and constituting the com- F mittee under the Act to conduct the enquiry, on the basis of fresh material which was not available to this court when SCJA's case was decided. It is settled law that it is the decision and not the reasons in support thereof that would be conclusive and binds all parties. Therefore, even if there is any addi- tional material that was subsequently discovered, it would be oflittle avail to assial the correctness of the judgment except by way of review before the G Bench the decidedSCJA 's case.

The Constitution confers in explicit language judicial review on the Supreme Court and by operation of Articles 138, 139 and 140, enlarged that power, to alongate and effectively adjudicate the questions doing full and H

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A effective justice. The power of judicial review i.' to stamp out, excesses in exercise of power, injustice or miscarriage of justice. The decision of this court is the last word on the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws as law of the land under Art. 141. The Judge is the living orade working in dry light of realism pouring life and force into the dry bones of law to articulate the felt necessities of the time. The Judge, in particular from the higher judiciary possesses undoubtedly, power and jurisdiction to decide rightly or may err as well. The error must be corrected as provided under law. In its ebsence, it cannot be disturbed. The superior court has jurisdiction and power to deter- mine its own jurisdiction and error in that behalf does not constitute an error of jurisdiction. The people would shape their course of conduct or dealings or legal affairs in accordance with law. The law laid down by this court operates as precedent. The law laid, thus, needs stabilify, continuity and certainty. The judicial vacilation would undermine the respect for the law and the utility of the very judicial process as well as its efficacy. We are bound by the taught traditions and built-in heritage oflaw. Adherence to precedents, state decisis, is usually a wise policy for rule of law unless we have clear, compelling and substantial reasons for its reconsideration in the larger public interest. Recon- sideration of an earlier view is not due to an act of judicial fallibility but an index of supremacy of law. So when all the relevant provisions of law or material aspects of the case or binding precedent was not brought to the notice of the court and its impact on the general administration of law, it would need reconsideration. The.obvious error comnritted by the court lead- ing to miscarriage of justice would need correction by Article 142 or section 114read with Order47Rule 1orse~tion151 C.P.C. etc. But by itself it is not a licence to unsettle the settled law or keep the law at variance at pleasure or whim. F This Court is K£shav Mills Co. Ltd. v. C.l T. Bombay, [1965] 2 SCR 908 at 921-922 laid that :-

n1n re\'iewing and revising its earlier decision, this Court should ask itself whether in the interests of the public good or for any other valid and compulsive reasons, it is neces- sary that the earlier decision should be revised When this Court decides questions of law, its decisions are, under Article 141 binding on all courts within the territor:;· of I~dia, and so, it must be constant endeavour and concern of this court to introduce and maintain an element of cer-

K. SWAMI''· U.O.l. [RAMASWAMY, J.] 85

tainty and continuity in the interpretation of law in the country. Frequent exercise by the court of its power to review its earlier decisions on the ground that the view pressed before it later appears to the court to be more reasonable, may incidentally tend to make law uncertain and introduce confusion which must be consistently avoided. That is not to say that if on a subsequent oc- casion, the court is satisfied that its earlier decision was clearly erroneous, it should hesitate to correct the error; but before a previous decision is pronounced to be plainly erroneous, the court must be satisfied with a fair amount of unanimity amongst its members that a revision of the c said view is fully justified. It is not possible or desirable, and in any case it would be inexpedient to lay down any principles which should govern the approach of the court in dealing with the question of reviewing and revising its earlier decisions. It would always depend upon several relevant considerations:-

What is the nature of the infirmity or error on which a plea for a review and revision of the earlier view is based? On the earlier occasion, did some patent aspects of the question remain unnoticed, or was the attention of the court not drawn to any relevant and material statutory provision, or was any previous decision of this· court bear- ing on the point not noticed? Is the court hearing such plea fairly unanimous that there is such an error in the earlier view? What would be the impact of the error on the general administration of law or on public good? Has the earlier decision been followed on subsequent oc- casions either by this court or by the High Courts? And, would the reversal of the earlier decision lead to public inconvenience, hardship or mischief? These and other relevant considerations must be carefully borne in mind whenever this Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdic- tion to review and revise its earlier decisions. These con- siderations become still more significant when the earlier decision happens to be a unanimous decision of a Bench of five. l<;~.r°:ed Judges of this Court." H

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754, para 24 this Court laid stress on the importance of finality of decisions rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court; it could only be upset where the subject was of such fundamental importance to national life or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that "it is wiser to be ultimately right rather than to be consistantly wrong". The majority ratio in A.R. Antulay v. N.S. Naik (supra) rests upon its peculiar facts offending Arts. 14 and 21 and so the earlier direction for trial by a High Court Judge was reversed. The rule of law laid by this court, from the above perspective, in SCTA's case is clear, precise, certain and needs to maintain consistence. It is, therefore, not desirable to reopen the said ratio. But this finding does not conclude the controversy. Facts gave rise to diverse questions of far reaching importance which had not arisen when the earlier decision was rendered or canvassed.

The public are vitally interested in the cleanliness of the public ad- D ministration of justice which is of paramount importance. Public justice is the hall mark of public good. A person genuinely or bona fide interested in seek- ing declaration of law of public importance would always get sufficient inter- est and be entitled to seek declaration on that behalf which binds not only the State but every person, even if affected thereby, though not eo nominee a party respondent to the proceedings. A relief in favour of that person in his absence could in an appropriate case also be granted. InMakhanlal Waza and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1971] 1 SCR 749 at 753 para 6 the Constitution Bench held that the law declared by this court was binding on the State and its officers and they are bound to follow it whether majority of the respondents were parties or not to the previous petition. In S.P. Gupta's case this court having regard to the magnitude and importance of the constitutional ques- tions involved in the cases accorded locus to the Advocates. In B. Prabhakara Rao and Ors. v. State of A.P., [1985] Suppl. SCR 432 this court held that the relief claimed is of a general nature and against the state and so the failure to implead all the affected parties is not a bar to maintain the writ petition. SCJA's case itself is an authority for the proposition of declaration of public law when laid by the Advocates. In this case Three Judges' Bench referred public law questions to this Bench which are of wider constitutional ramifica- tions touching upon the independence of judiciary and the interpretation of the constitution and the Act.

H In the larger public interest, as the questions have arisen for the first

K. SWAMI v. U.0.1. [RAMASWAMY, J.] 87

time, it would be just and fit for this court to declare the law of proper procedure to be followed in admitting the motion to remove a judge of higher judiciary and the investigation thereon by the committee so that it would be the law of the land under Art. 141 of the Constitution. Though it would be ideal to implead the learned Judge as respondent, his absence too would stand to no impediment to declare public law which would bind him too. In that view, it must be held that the petitioner being a legal practitioner would be entitled to seek only declaration of law of certain aspects which would be adverted to hereinafter.

This Court in SC/A's case held that the Speaker of the House of the People is a "statutory authority''. Under Article 93 of the Constitution, the C House of the People haivng chosen the Speaker, he/she holds the office till he/she ceases, as per Article 94 to be a member of the Vouse of.the People or removed or resigned. The office of the Speaker is of trust by the House of the People elected by adult franchise by the people. Under section 3(1) (a), on presentation of a motion praying for the removal.of a Judge signed by not less than 100 members of the House of the People, "the Speaker", "may'' under section 3(1) of the Act, after consulting "such persons", if any, as he thinks fit and "after considering such material", if any, as may be available to him either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.

The primary requisite which the Speaker is enjoined to do is to find whether the motion was signed by not less than 100 members of the House of the People. Equally, he is required to consider the grounds and the materials, if any, available to him, before taking a decision to admit or refuse to admit the same. The word 'may' though couched with discretion, when the exercise of the power effects the rights of the Judge, causes convulsions on judiciary and generate psychological set back on ongoing process, the Speaker was authorised to wisely exercise discretionary power by consulting such persons, if any, as he may have chosen and thinks fit to be consulted. Before admitting the motion, it may be expected and may be prudent that the Speaker may consult persons like the Chief Justice of India, the fountain head of judiciary, and the Attorney General of India, G the Principal Advisor of the Govt., whose duty should be to give advice upon legal matters or to perform such duties of legal character. If the Speaker consults, Chief Justice of India he would help him by proper advice, and the Attorney General is under the consitutional duty lo tender advice and to assist the Hon'ble Speaker to discharge the constitutional H

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A fucntion, i.e. to decide in admitting or refusing to admit the motion to remove the judge of the constitutional judiciary. It is also equally salutary that before admitting the motion to remove the Judge, there shall exist factual foundation. The grounds mentioned in the motion, the material or evidence placed in s·dpport thereof and the advice tendered, if consulted, woufrl form "the record". He would consider that record and filter the process before deciding to initiate proceedings or refusal thereof. He need not weigh the pros and cons to find prima facie case. He ·acts, neither as a quasi-judicial nor an administrative authority but, purely as a constitutional functionary and with high sense of responsibility and on due consideration of 'the record' and arrives at a decision to admit or refuse to admit the motion to remove the Judge. The Speaker, therefore, would act with utmost care, caution, circumspection and responsibility and wholly guided by considerations of larger interest of the public administration of justice. He would equally keep in his gaze and in the mind the seriousness of the imputations, nature and quality of the recqrd before him and "its indelible chilling effect on the public adminstration of justice and independence of the judiciary in the estimate of the general public". Existence of definite material or evidence in support of the grounds of the motion, before initiation of the motion for removal of the Judge is, thus, a condition precedent. Lest it would be an open invitation to initiate, for obvious reasons, proceedings to remove the Judge and then resort to collecting perjured evidence in support thereof against the judge which is subversive of judicial independence and a death- knell to rule of law. Action in any other way, the Speaker would forfeit the trust reposed by the founding fathers of the Constitution in that office as well as the confidence of the House of People, i.e. the people of Bharat themselves. The fact that the committee framed charges from the record transmitted by the Speaker for- tifies that he had before him definite mateiral and it furnishes presumptive inference that he had due consideration thereof before admitting the motion.

The question then is the scope of judicial review of the admission of the motion by the Speaker. Articles 32, 131 to 136 entrust in express terms judicial review to the Supreme Court; in particular Article 32 as the ultimate repository and guardian of the rights and liberties of the people. The constitution is the fundamental law of the land. It limits, as its touchstone, the powers and functions of the organs of the State, viz. the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Constitution also demar- H cated and delienated the powers and functions of these organs which

K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 89

implies that each organ would maintain a delicate balance with self-im- A posed restrictions for smooth functioning of the parliamentary democracy to establish an egalitarian social order under rule of law. Judicial review thus is an incident of and flows form the constitution to securing and protecting the welfare of the people as effectively as it may, according justice - social, economic and political in all the institutions of national life. Court is the living voice of the Constitution which stands against any winds B that blow as a heaven of refuge to those who might otherwise suffer due to their helplessness, inability, non-conformity, handicaps, exploitation, victims of prejudice or public excitement etc. The paramount duty of ,he court is to protect their rights and translate the glorious and dynamic contents of the Directive Principles and the fundamental rights as a liVIng c law, making them meaningful to all manner of people.

In this light the question emerges whether the decision of the Speaker to admit the motion to remove the judge moved by requisite number of members of the House of the People is amenable to judicial review. Undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/func- tionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the. links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Art. 14 or unfair procedure offending Art.21. But exceptions are envisaged keeping institu- tional pragmatism into play, conscious as we are of each other's limitations. The process t:i remove a Judge under Art. 124 (4) consists of several steps, F i.e. the O:.otion duly moved i.e. consideration of the record by the Speaker and decision to admit the motion; his immediate constituting of the Com- mittee under Sec.3(2) of the Act; drawing up of definite charges by the Committee and investigation for proof of misbehaviour or incapacity after adhering to the procedure envisaged therein; recording finding or fmdings thereon and transmission of the report and the evidence to the Speaker G and in case of proof of misbehaviour or incapacity placing the report and the evidence on the floor of the House and address by each house and majority resolution recommending to the President to remo,,~ the Judge. The entire process though integral, all the steps in the process do not take the same colour of judicial process but bear different contours. The initia- H

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A tion of the motion is statutory and address by each house and resolution recommending removal of the Judge are political process. Its admission, the constitution of the committee are statuto:y functions. Investigation by the Committee is judicial process. The Speaker, in this setting, acts !leither as an Executive authority nor as a quasi-judicial authority. He merely discharges the functions of high constituional responsibility. His decision to admit the motion to remove the Judge of the Constitutional Court for absence of reasons stated or staring from the record is not violative of Art. 14 or Art. 21 of the Constitution nor offends the principles of natural justice.

Section 3(2) of the Act also does not envisage to place the motion as an agenda before the Lok Sabha to secure the collective wisdom of the House before admitting or refusing to admit the motion. The Act exclusive- ly confers on the Speaker the power, to his/her individual discretion, to take a decision in this behalf. The further contention that the Speaker is constitutionally obligated to conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the grounds made in the motion and to determine whether or not prima facie case for investigation has been made out is devoid of substance. As seen earlier, he merely performs, though as a statutory authority, a constitutional function to admit or refuse to admit the motion to remove the Judge. The Constitution entrusted to the Speaker that responsibility with the expectation that he acts as a reasonable man, as stated earlier, with high degree of responsibility, considers the grounds for the removal in the motion and the record before taking a decision to admit the motion or refusal thereof. The further allegation that the Speaker acted at the behest of the J anata Dal and Bhartiya J anta Party and that the admission of the motion "coloured by political motivation" is not based on any acceptable factual foundation and is personal to the Judge.

Whether the Speaker is enjoined to consult the Chief Justice of India before constituting the Committee under Sec.3(2) or seek nomination of a sitting Judge of this Court or one of the High Courts' Chief Justices is the next question. Section 3(2) contemplates that if the motion to remove a G Judge is admitted, the Speaker shall, keep the motion pending and con- stitute, as soon as may be, a Committee "for the purpose of investigation into the grounds on which the removal of a Judge is prayed for" (emphasis supplied) under S.3(1) consiSting of a sitting Judge of this Court, one of the Chief Justices of the High Courts and a distinguished Jurist. Ex facie, H it enjoins no obligation on the Speaker to have consultation with the Chief

K.SWAM!v. U.0.1.[RAMASWAMY,J.] 91

Justice of India nor to seek nomination of a sitting Judge of the Supreme A Court in terms of Section 3(2)(a) or one referred to in clause (b). It is his individual choice to constitute the Committee after obtaining the consent of the concerned member/members. The constitution of the Committee, therefore, without consultation of the Chief Justite of India or his nomina· tion of any of the members is not per se illegal. I~ is desirable and salutary B that the Speaker and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha may set up convention in this behalf. As it is a first case the failure thereof is neither subversive of Art. 124(5) nor dehors section 3(2) of the Act. The Act fastens no obligation to ascertain collective wisdom of the House through either political parties or their floor leaders. The further contention that the Speaker ought not to have directly approached a sitting Judge of this Court C seeking his consent in terms of Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, also lacks substance. The further contention that the sitting Judge of this court and the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court are not performing their normal constitutional duties when they act as members of the Committee under the Act unless the President of India gives his consent and. treats the D function as part of their duties by a notification, does not appear to be well founded. Giving consent is one part. Performance of duties as members of the Committee is a different facet. There is no constitutional obligation to obtain prior consent of the President. But before entering upon the duties by a sitting Judge of this court and the Chief Justice of a High Court as Presiding Officer and member of the Committee respectively, a notifica- E tion, as directed to be issued in this behalf in SOA's case, is necessary. In this situation, the latter contention lost its luster. That apart the admission of th motion wa; already upheld by this Court.

The next question is the validity and legality of the procedure adopted by the Committee to investiglon into the illeged misbehaviour. To appreciate that question in its proper perspective and to cull out its effect, it is necessary to note the pertinent provisions of the Constitution, the Act and the Rules. The foundation to remove a Judge under Art. 124 (4) through political process, is the "proved misbehaviour or incapacity". Art. 124(5) envisages to regulate the procedure by law for the presentation of the address and "investigation and proof' of the misbehavi~ur or in- capacity. Section 4(1) provides the procedure thus :

"Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Committee shall have power to regulate its own procedure H

92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A in making the investigation ...... 11

The .Rules expressly do not provide any specific procedure in this behalf. Two members of the Parliament, viz. Sri George Fernandez from Janata Dal and Sri Jaswant Singh from Bhartiya Janta Party and the SCJA sought permission, to place on record certain material in their possession said to be against the learned Judge and to lead evidence against him through their counsel and it granted conditional permission to assist the Advocate appointed under Sec. 3(9) to conduct the case against the learned Judge. A conjoint reading of Sec. 3(3) (framing of definite charges for investigation; their supply, together with a statement of grounds on which each charge is based to the Judge; his right of objections to the charges under rule 6 read with Section 3(8) and. if found tenable, revision thereof by rule 7, giving reasonable opportunity to present his fresh written statement of defence under Secs. 3(8) and 3(4) and rule 7; right to cross examine witnesses; adduction of evidence in defence; right of hearing under Sec. 4(1) before submitting the report coupled with the duty to conduct ex parte enquiry under rule (8), if the Judge refuses to participate, does indicate that the Parliament intended that the investigation into the misbehaviour or incapacity of the Judge, shall be confined only between the advocate appointed under Sec. 3(9) of the Act and the learned Judge or his counsel who alone are entitled to participate and lead evidence in proof or disproof of the charges be heard. By necessary implication, the Act and the Rules exclude participation or adduction of evidence by any other person to prove the· alleged misbehaviour or incapacity. In the virgin area, the Committee appears to liave permitted them hedged with condi- tions to subserve the purpose. But none should be permitted to sully the reputation, integrity or conduct of the Judge concerned by subsequently fabricating any material or adduction of evidence de hors the one already placed before the Speaker who transmitted to the Committee or the one summoned by the Committee. The contention of Sri Shanti Bhushan that 108 members who moved the motion are interested to participate and prove the charges against the Judge runs counter to the scheme of the Act G and the Rules and does not warrant acceptance. The political process starts only with the requisite members of the Parliament moving the motion and it is the only mode to set in motion the process to remove a Judge. Undoubtedly, they are people's representatives but the law makers did not preserve to themselves the role of the prosecutor but assigned it to the H Advocate appointed under section 3(9) and referred to the Speaker to set