Judiciary Vs. Legislature : Neck to Neck

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy has approached Chief Justice of India by writing a letter wherein he has mentioned how Justice N V Ramana has influenced the State High Court cases. He went to the extent of stating that some High Court judges are hostile to his government by knowingly putting the hurdles in the way of implementation of decision and orders of his government. This is unprecedented incident of judiciary coming in way of Legislature in the utter infringement of its ambit.

Manner of dealing with allegations of misconduct against judges

The makers of constitution proved wise enough to foresee such circumstances in advance that is why they provided various safeguards regarding separation of judiciary from legislature vide articles 122 & 212. Moreover articles 124 (4) enjoins impeachment for judges of Supreme Court in case of proven misconduct or behaviour which is unbecoming of the dignity of their office. Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana Justice V Ramaswamy was the first judge to have faced impeachment and escaped removal as there were 196 votes in favour while 205 abstained from voting. The other ones were Justices P D Dinakaran and Soumitra Sen

Procedure of Removal

The constitution provides that a judge can be removed only by an order of the president, based on a motion passed by both houses of parliament. The procedure for removal of judges is elaborated in the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968. The Act states following set of steps to be taken for removal:

• Under the Act, an impeachment motion may originate in either house of parliament. To initiate proceedings: (i) at least 100 members of Lok Sabha may give a signed notice to the speaker, or (ii) at least 50 members of Rajya Sabha may give a signed notice to the chairman. The speaker or chairman may consult individuals and examine relevant material related to the notice. Based on this, he or she may decide to either admit the motion or refuse to admit it.
• If the motion is admitted, the speaker or chairman (who receives it) will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the complaint. It will comprise: (i) a Supreme Court judge; (ii) chief justice of a high court; and (iii) a distinguished jurist. The committee will frame charges based on which the investigation will be conducted. A copy of the charges will be forwarded to the judge who can present a written defence.
• After concluding its investigation, the committee will submit its report to the speaker or chairman, who will then lay the report before the relevant house of parliament. If the report records a finding of misbehaviour or incapacity, the motion for removal will be taken up for consideration and debated.
• The motion for removal is required to be adopted by each House of Parliament by: (i) a majority of the total membership of that house; and (ii) a majority of at least two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting. If the motion is adopted by this majority, the motion will be sent to the other house for adoption.
• Once the motion is adopted in both houses, it is sent to the president, who will issue an order for the removal of the judge.

Handling of CM’s Complaint

CJI will examine the complaint of Chief Minister by looking into each and every detail furnished which will make the ground for further investigation or rejecting the same altogether.

CM has cited on the one hand, various instances of adverse rulings passed by the judge against the various orders passed by his government whereas on the other, he accused him of taking favours of his rival N. Chandrababu Naidu, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh. The million dollar question is – whether the charges levelled by him stands the test of truth or do they need further probe.

Justice Ramana’s View:

• While speaking on the occasion of virtual launch of a book “Judiciary, Judges and the Administration of Justice” authored by former Supreme Court judge, Justice R. Banumathi, he enumerated the following points as reply against the charges levelled against him by Andhra’s CM.
• As judges are self-restrained from speaking out in their own defence, they are now being construed as soft targets for criticism. This issue is further complicated by the proliferation of social media and technology, wherein judges are becoming victims of juicy gossip and slanderous social media posts
• It is a misunderstanding that judges enjoy a luxurious lifestyle in ivory towers
• Judges are usually torn between restraints and relationships. Judges have to balance their social life in order to be independent. It is completely upon the judge to maintain such self-imposed restrictions
• He quoted the words of Justice Aharon Barak, former Chief Justice of Supreme Court of Israel, who observed that a “crucial condition for judicial independence is the personal independence of the judge

Voice of the fourth pillar muzzled

Andhra Pradesh government had to file an FIR at the instance of Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, J K Maheshwari on September 15. The case pertains to purchasing of large land transactions in Amaravati at old prices. Former Advocate General of the state Mr. D. Srinivas and a close consociate of Justice Ramana was found to be involved in the case. The most bizarre thing worth noting was that, that the reporting of the case was disallowed by the order of the Chief Justice J K Maheshwari. This all was narrated in the CM’s letter.

Now, this goes against every tenet of freedom of speech, the right of the press to properly report on matters of public importance and our right as citizens to receive such reports, and the tenets of transparency and accountability of high constitutional office-holders in a democracy. Indeed, one would like the Andhra Chief Justice to explain to us what the crucial aspect of security of the State or integrity of the country involved in this case of alleged land grab through insider knowledge is that we the citizens should not know about it. It is galling in the extreme that a senior judge should think that after 70 years of constitutional freedom, we will meekly consent to have our mouths gagged and our ears clogged. Sadly, that gag order continues, contrary to expectation that the designated sentinel on the watch, the highest court, would order its immediate extinction on becoming aware of its existence.

CJI to deliver justice, not judgment

Being the part of the world’s largest democracy, it is every citizen’s right to know about any news, particularly the one wherein it is alleged that henchmen of executive and judiciary are also involved. Moreover as citizen too, it is the accused’s right also to get an opportunity to prove his innocence and seek absolution as matter involves his honor and dignity.

And here one may express an anxiety which is dogging us for quite some time about Chief Justices of India falling short of the standards of integrity and probity. The office of the CJI is the most august one — pater familas of the legal system, master of the roster, decisive say in appointment of the next generations of judges — it does not get more powerful. We deserve to get the best CJI we can get.

Judging the judges

Andhra Pradesh CM is also not above scrutiny as the fingers have started to be pointing towards him saying thathe has levelled these allegations against Justice Ramana because Justice Ramana is speeding up cases of corruption against politicians, and Mr. Jagan Mohan has a slew of cases involving vast amounts of money pending against him. It is a fact that the move of our PM against corruption cannot succeed unless utmost priority is given to all such corruption cases; the way to good governance lies through punishment of the corrupt governors, and the more stringent and expeditious this is, the better.

It is high time that we elect a leadership which could focus on the measures required to obtain and keep high levels of integrity , and that includes not just politicians and bureaucrats, but also judges. And for good measure perhaps, we should also bestow thought on the office of a judicial ombudsman.

Judging the Odds:

Prelims Q: Justice N.V. Ramana will take over the current Chief Justice of India in

(a) April 2022
(b) May 2022
(c) April 2021
(d) January 2021

Mains Q: “Andhra Pradesh CM’s letter to CJI is an example of infringement of its ambit by the Executive” Analyse the statement in background of those circumstances which led to this incident. What could be the ways though which events of such types can be avoided?