Breaking: Plea Against Dismissal Of Impeachment Motion Against CJI Withdrawn As SC Refused To Provide The Copy Of The Order Constituting The Constitution Bench

After a hearing that lasted over 45 minutes, the petition instituted on behalf of two Rajyasbaha MPs to challenge the order of Vice President Venkaiah Naidu in rejecting the Notice of Motion for impeachment of Chief Justice Dipak Misra has been withdrawn by the petitioners on Tuesday as the Constitution Bench has refused to give the copy of the order constituting the Constitution Bench to the petitioners.Submitting that the said petition has been referred before the five judge constitution bench, comprising Justices A. K. Sikri, S. A. Bobde, N. V. Ramanna, Arun Mishra and A. K. Goel, by virtue of an administrative order, Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal advanced on behalf of the petitioners,“Article 145(3) makes it clear that a reference to a bench of five judges for deciding a substantial question of law involving the interpretation of the Constitution may be made only by a judicial order...here, there is no judicial order formulating any substantial question of law for deliberation by the constitution bench...the petitioners are not privy to any such order...the Supreme Court Rules do not permit the Chief Justice to pass an order in this behalf on the Administrative side...if the authority passing the order happens to be the Chief Justice, then the petitioners are entitled to be informed thereof and tendered a copy of the order...”“Never before has a petition been referred to a five judge bench immediately on filing and by an administrative order...We have to apply our mind to the order and whether it has to be challenged...if Your Lordships say that we may not challenge the order, then this order shall be the only order without a challenge in the history of the constitution...the only exception to the rule of law would be an order passed in exercise of the power of the ‘Master of the Roster’...”, he continued.“When the matter has been scheduled to be argued on merits, you are praying for the order (referring the present petition to the five judge constitution bench)...you have already questioned the order...now you may proceed with submissions on the merits, otherwise we may feel that there is something else...”, intervened the bench.“Please let us have a copy of the order...we may or may not question it...there is nothing personal against anyone...”, responded Mr. Sibal, adding, “will the dignity of the Court be jeopardised if we procure a copy of the order?”“The AOR was informed by the Registry at 10:29 AM that the petition is listed before the constitution bench...initially, it was not even being numbered and then suddenly, it was referred to the constitution bench...”, he continued.When the bench insisted that Mr. Sibal argue on merits, he contended, “the petition has not even been admitted...if someone felt that it involves such a substantial question of interpretation of the Constitution to warrant a reference to a five judge bench, then it must be admitted...”At this point, Attorney General K. K. Venugopal interjected, “firstly, there has to be some authority by virtue of which the reference to a larger bench may be challenged...secondly, as to the reference being made on the judicial side, it is settled that, say, a two judge bench may require a matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for the constitution of a larger bench...so far as the administrative side is concerned, in some cases, it may be necessary for a matter to be placed before a three judge bench directly by the Chief Justice of a High Court...”Thereupon, the AG referred to the 2005 judgment of a five judge bench of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra, wherein it was held that the decisions of a larger bench of the apex court shall bind any subsequent benches of lesser or co-equal strength, and that, in the event of doubt as to the correctness of the view in law of such earlier bench, any subsequent smaller or coordinate bench may invite the attention of the Chief Justice for placement of the matter before a bench of larger quorum.The AG drew the attention of the bench to the two exceptions to the aforesaid rules contemplated in the judgment- “ (i) The abovesaid rules do not bind the discretion of the Chief Justice in whom vests the power of framing the roster and who can direct any particular matter to be placed for hearing before any particular Bench of any strength; and (ii) In spite of the rules laid down herein-above, if the matter has already come up for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum and that Bench itself feels that the view of the law taken by a Bench of lesser quorum, which view is in doubt, needs correction or reconsideration then by way of exception (and not as a rule) and for reasons it may proceed to hear the case and examine the correctness of the previous decision in question dispensing with the need of a specific reference or the order of Chief Justice constituting the Bench and such listing”In context of the first exception enumerated above, the AG advanced,...

Breaking: Plea Against Dismissal Of Impeachment Motion Against CJI Withdrawn As SC Refused To Provide The Copy Of The Order Constituting The Constitution Bench

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Mehal Jain

Breaking: Plea Against Dismissal Of Impeachment Motion Against CJI Withdrawn As SC Refused To Provide The Copy Of The Order Constituting The Constitution Bench

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers