Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Judges Inquiry Committee & Anr

Justice P.D. Dinakaran ... Petitioner

Versus

Judges Inquiry Committee and another ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the

Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya

Sabha) (for short, `the Chairman') under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry)

Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act") rejecting the petitioner's prayer for supply of

the details and documents enumerated in paragraph 4(a) to (m) of

application dated 19.4.2011 and objections raised by him to the jurisdiction

of the Committee to frame certain charges.

2

2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for

presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner,

who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under

Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The acts of

misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner were enumerated in the

notice, which was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in

support of the allegations. For the sake of convenient reference, the

allegations contained in the notice of motion are reproduced below:

"I. Possessing wealth disproportionate to known sources of

income.

II. Unlawfully securing five Housing Board plots, in favour

of his wife, and two daughters.

III. Entering into Benami transactions prohibited and

punishable under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition)

Act, 1988.

IV. Acquiring and possessing agricultural holdings beyond

ceiling limit under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms

(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961.

V. Illegal encroachment on Government and public property

to deprive dalits and the poor of their right to livelihood.

VI. Violation of the human rights of dalits and the poor.

VII. Destruction of evidence during official enquiry.

VIII. Obstructing public servant on duty.

3

IX. Repeated undervaluation of properties at the time of

registration of sale to evade stamp duty.

X. Carrying out illegal construction in breach of Town

Planning Law and planning permit.

XI. Misuse of official position to unlawfully secure property

and to facilitate other illegal acts for personal gain.

XII. Abuse of judicial office:

A. To pass dishonest judicial orders:

a) Contrary to settled principles of law to favour a

few individuals or for his own unjust enrichment,

at the cost of the public exchequer and the

country's natural resources.

b) In matters where he had personal and direct

pecuniary interest to secure several properties for

his family.

B. To take irregular and dishonest administrative actions:

a) for constituting Benches and fixing Rosters of

judges to facilitate dishonest judicial decisions.

b) to make arbitrary and illegal appointments and

transfers."

The explanatory note appended to the notice of motion contained

detailed facts which, in the opinion of the signatories of the motion,

supported the acts of misbehaviour alleged against the petitioner.

4

3. After the motion was admitted, the Chairman constituted a Committee

comprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr.

Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and

Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate.

4. Before the Committee could commence its proceedings, Mr. Justice

A.R. Dave was elevated to this Court and, in his place, Mr. Justice J.S.

Khehar, the then Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court was appointed as

member of the Committee. In September, 2010, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam,

Judge, Supreme Court of India was appointed as Presiding Officer because

Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar recused from the Committee.

5. After preliminary scrutiny of the material placed before it which

included documents summoned from Government departments and

agencies/instrumentalities of the State and statements of some persons

recorded in the context of the allegation made against the petitioner, the

Committee issued notice dated 16.3.2011 requiring him to appear on

9.4.2011 to answer the charges. The notice was accompanied by a statement

of charges and lists of documents and witnesses. Each of the 14 charges

enumerated in the notice was supported by specific grounds with minute

details and documents.

5

6. Immediately after receiving notice, the petitioner submitted

application dated 7.4.2011 to the Chairman with the prayer that a direction

may be issued for supply of 10 documents specified therein. By another

application of the same date, the petitioner sought audience of the Chairman.

On the next date, i.e., 8.4.2011, he made a representation to the Chairman

with the prayer that order admitting notice of motion may be withdrawn,

order constituting the Inquiry Committee may be rescinded and notice issued

by the Committee may be annulled. Simultaneously, he raised an objection

to the appointment of Shri P.P. Rao as member of the Committee by alleging

that he was biased. On 9.4.2011, the petitioner sent a letter to the Presiding

Officer of the Committee enclosing therewith a copy of representation dated

8.4.2011 made to the Chairman and requested that further proceedings may

be deferred till the same was decided. The petitioner's request was turned

down by the Presiding Officer of the Committee vide order dated 9.4.2011

and he was asked to file written statement of defence latest by 20.4.2011.

After 10 days, the petitioner submitted two applications dated 19.4.2011 to

the Committee. In the first application, he made a request for supply of

copies of about three dozen documents. By the second application, the

petitioner raised several objections against the notice. One of his objections

was that the charges framed by the Committee are beyond the scope of the

6

notice of motion presented before the Rajya Sabha and that while framing

the charges, the Committee had taken into consideration the material which

did not form part of the notice of motion. Another objection taken by the

petitioner was that even before issuing notice under Section 3(4), the

Committee had, with the assistance of the advocate appointed under Section

3(9), made investigation into the charges and this was legally impermissible.

The petitioner also objected to the participation of Shri P.P. Rao in the

proceedings of the Committee on the ground of bias.

7. The applications made by the petitioner to the Committee were

disposed of by two separate orders dated 24.4.2011. By one order, the

Committee virtually rejected the petitioner's request for supply of the

documents specified in paragraph 4 of the first application. The Committee

observed that documents mentioned at paragraph 4 (g.1), (g.2), (g.3), (g.6),

(g.16) and paragraph 4(j) and 4(k) are not available with it and the material

on which the charges were based had already been supplied to the petitioner.

The relevant portions of the order passed in relation to the petitioner's

demand for supply of documents are reproduced below:

"It may be stated at the outset that the documents/materials at

paragraph 4(g.l), (g.2), (g.3), (g.6), (g. 16) and paragraph 4 (j)

and 4(k) are not available with this Committee.

7

None of the documents/materials/information in the long

list drawn up so laboriously is of any relevance to the enquiry

being conducted by this Committee or would serve any purpose

in the preparation/submission of the written statement of

defence to the charges served upon the judge. In case of some

of the items in the list the request to supply copies is plainly

frivolous. All the materials on which the charges are based are,

as noted above, comprehensively served upon the applicant

along with the list of witnesses.

Now, taking up each of the items in the list one by one

the Committee is of the considered view that the

documents/materials enumerated at sub-paragraphs (a) and (b)

of paragraph 4 have no relevance to the present enquiry:

Further, from the materials on record the Committee has

reasons to believe that the Judge is already in possession of a

copy of the notice of motion. Nevertheless, just to satisfy the

request, the judge may be given copies of the notice of motion

and the documents/evidence submitted in its support.

The document at sub-paragraph (c) is a public document

and there may be no objection to giving it to the Judge.

The document at sub-paragraph (d) has no relevance to

the inquiry before the Committee and the request for its supply

is disallowed.

As to the item at sub-paragraph (e), the Inquiry

Committee has not framed any formal Rules.

The procedure proposed to be adopted by the Committee

would be fully explained at the first sitting of the hearing, in

case there is the need to hold further hearings.

The documents at sub-paragraph (g) (1), (2), (3), (11),

(12), (14) are inter-departmental letters of which no copy can be

given to the Judge. The rest of the materials at sub-paragraph

(g) (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (13), (15), (16), (17), (18),

(19), (20), (21), (22), (23), (24), (25) and (26), have no

8

relevance to the filing of the written statement and hence, the

prayer for furnishing copies of those documents is disallowed.

Regarding sub-paragraph (h), if any additional document/

material/ information or an additional witness is proposed to be

used/ examined in support of the charges, the list of additional

documents/witnesses would be supplied to the applicant in due

course.

The information sought in sub-paragraphs (i), (j), (k), (l)

and (m) are prima facie frivolous and are rejected.

Having said all this, the Committee would like to add that

it has got nothing to hide and whatever documents/materials are

available with it are open to inspection. The applicant may

inspect or cause inspection of the documents available with the

Committee during working hours on any day."

By the second order, the Committee rejected the preliminary

objections raised by the petitioner to its jurisdiction and the procedure

adopted by it for framing the charges. The relevant portions of the second

order are extracted below:

"In case the ground on which the removal of the judge is sought

is not incapacitation but misbehaviour it would be incumbent

upon the committee, before framing the definite charges against

the judge, to examine all instances of misbehaviour, apart from

their nature and magnitude. Further in case while examining a

certain instance of misbehaviour the Committee comes across

materials indicating other instances of misbehaviour it would be

obligatory for the Committee to thoroughly follow those leads

to the other instances and to bring the full facts to light.

The procedure under Section 3 of the Judges (Inquiry)

Act, 1968 envisages the commencement of proceedings with

the notice of motion sent by either the Speaker of the House of

9

the People or the Chairman of the Council of States followed by

investigation at the instance of the Committee. Next step in the

sequence of procedure is the framing of definite charges on the

basis of which the investigation is proposed to be held.

Framing of definite charges is thus the foundation for the

process of participatory investigation. Sub-section (3) does not

contemplate that the framing of charges must necessarily be

based only on the notice of motion and the material sent

therewith. In order to enable the Committee to frame definite

charges, it would be within its powers to have preliminary

investigations made and then if need be, frame definite charges

which would then form the basis of the participatory

investigation.

The procedure as indicated above would also be fair to

the Judge as any spurious or unsubstantiated material would get

screened off in the process. It is following the above process

that in the instant case, the Committee deemed it fit not to

include at least two of the charges though they were so

mentioned in the notice of motion. For the same reasons it

could also include some of the additional charges as the

preliminary enquiry indicated. The power to conduct

investigation includes all incidental and consequential powers

to sub-serve that power.

If the argument made on behalf the applicant is accepted

it would take the soul out of the provisions of section 3 of the

Act and render the investigation by the Committee completely

ineffectual. The job of the Committee is not to simply

paraphrase the grounds in the notice of motion and to re-hash

the materials submitted before the House of the People or the

Council of States, as the case may be. A Committee consisting

of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a Chief Justice of the

High Court and a distinguished jurist is not a committee of

draftsmen.

The second objection that the misbehaviour of a Judge in

order to constitute a basis for his removal must relate to the

conduct of the Judge in the discharge of his duties is equally

without substance. It amounts to saying that it does not matter if

10

beyond the Court hours a Judge is a thief in his personal life.

The submission is fit only to be taken note of and be rejected.

The third objection relates to the Committee's proceeding

on April 9, 2011, when the petition submitted by the applicant

asking for time was put up before Mr. Justice Aftab Alam who

rejected it by the order passed on that date. According to the

applicant, the order of that date is non est because in the

absence of the other two members there was no quorum for the

Committee's sitting. In this regard it needs to be noted that the

previous sitting of the Committee was held on April 2, 2011

and on that date the Committee had made the following

resolution:

"On the basis of the authorization made by Mr. Justice

J.S. Khehar and Mr. P.P. Rao, the Committee resolved

that on April 9, 2011, the date on which Mr. Justice

P.D. Dinakaran is directed to appear and submit his

response to the charges, the Presiding Officer of the

Committee, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, may fix the dates

for further proceedings of the Committee."

The reason for the resolution was that the frequent visits

to Delhi, apart from personally taxing to Justice Khehar tended

to affect his work as the Chief Justice of the High Court. Mr.

P.P. Rao, similarly, had some other unavoidable commitment. It

was, therefore, felt that the applicant might submit his written

statement of defence in the presence of the Presiding Officer

alone who would fix the dates for further proceedings of the

Committee.

It is true that the petition filed on behalf of Mr. Justice

P.D. Dinakaran on April 9, 2011, was put up before the

Presiding Officer of the Committee while he was sitting singly

and he passed an order on that petition in the presence of the

counsel for the applicant. Nevertheless, the draft order was sent,

both to Justice Khehar and Mr. P.P. Rao and it was formalized

as the order of the Committee, only after incorporating the

suggestions made by the other two members and when it was

finally approved by all the three members. Consequently, the

11

copy of the order was given to the counsel for the applicant

only on April 11, 2011."

The Committee also held that the plea of bias raised against Shri P.P.

Rao was an afterthought and was untenable. We are not adverting to the

reasons recorded by the Committee for arriving at this conclusion because

the petitioner had challenged the appointment of Shri P.P. Rao as member of

the Committee in a separate petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 217 of

2011, which has since been disposed of.

8. Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner placed before the Court a chart to show that the charges framed by

the Committee under Section 3(3) were not in consonance with the

allegations contained in the notice of motion presented by 50 members of

the Rajya Sabha and argued that charges No.3, 5, 13 and 14, which are not

based on the allegations contained in the notice of motion are liable to be

quashed as without jurisdiction. Shri Patil emphasised that the Committee's

power to frame charges and make investigation is limited to the allegations

on which the notice of motion is based and it does not have the jurisdiction

to frame charges on other allegations. Learned senior counsel also faulted

the procedure adopted by the Committee by pointing out that the

investigation contemplated under Section 3(2) commences with the framing

12

of definite charges under Section 3(3) which are required to be

communicated to the concerned Judge under Section 3(4) and the power

vested in the Committee under Section 5 can be exercised only for the

purpose of making investigation under the Act but, in the present case, the

Committee started investigation even before framing the charges, collected

large number of documents and recorded statements of some persons with

the assistance of the advocate appointed under Section 3(9). Shri Patil then

argued that by making investigation prior to the framing of charges, the

Committee has acted in violation of the scheme of the Act and the petitioner

has a bona fide apprehension that the investigation to be made hereinafter

will be an empty formality. Shri Patil relied upon the judgments of this

Court in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India

(1991) 4 SCC 699, Sarojini Ramaswami v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC

506 and Krishna Swami v. Union of India and others (1992) 4 SCC 605

as also the judgments of the Kerala, Bombay and Allahabad High Courts in

V. Padmanabha Ravi Varma Raja v. Deputy Tahsildar, Chittur AIR

1963 Kerala 155, Mahendra Bhawanji Thakar v. S.P. Pande, AIR 1964

Bombay 170 and Prem Prakash Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1977

Allahabad 482 and argued that the minority view expressed by K.

Ramaswamy, J. in Krishna Swami's case on the interpretation of Sections 3

and 4 of the Act should be treated as law declared under Article 141 of the

13

Constitution because the majority did not express any view on the questions

framed by the three-Judge Bench. Learned senior counsel further argued

that in the absence of any contrary view by the majority, the minority

opinion is binding on all including this Court unless the same is overruled by

a larger Bench. Shri Patil finally argued that violation of the mandate of

Section 3 has the effect of vitiating the proceedings of the Committee and,

therefore, the charges framed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.

9. During the course of arguments in rejoinder, Shri Patil produced copy

of order dated 11.5.2010 issued by the Central Government appointing Shri

U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate of this Court to assist the Committee and

argued that the same should be treated as nullity being ultra vires the

provisions of Section 3(9) which postulates appointment of an advocate by

the Central Government to conduct the case against the Judge only when it

is required to do so by the Speaker or the Chairman. Learned senior counsel

submitted that by getting an advocate appointed for its assistance, the

Committee has assumed the role of an adversary and it can no longer be

treated as an impartial body entrusted with the task of making investigation

into the grounds on which the petitioner's removal has been sought from the

office of the Chief Justice.

14

10. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the Committee

relied upon paragraph 69 of the judgment of the majority of the Constitution

Bench in Sarojini Ramaswami's case and argued that the Court cannot

quash the charges at an intermediary stage and it will be open to the

petitioner to challenge the same in case the report of the Committee is

adverse to him and on a motion being passed by Parliament, he is removed

from the office. Shri Lalit then referred to Articles 121 and 124(4) and (5),

the judgments in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability's case,

Krishna Swami's case and argued that for the purpose of framing charges

under Section 3(3), the Committee is entitled to scrutinise the allegations

contained in the notice of motion and the supporting material and also make

preliminary inquiry to prima facie satisfy itself that the particular allegations

need further investigation. Learned senior counsel emphasised that

investigation into the allegations of misbehaviour levelled against a Judge of

the High Court or the Supreme Court is a serious matter and before framing

definite charges under Section 3(3), the Committee is duty bound to

carefully scrutinise the allegations contained in the notice of motion along

with other material and then decide whether there exists sufficient ground

for framing the charges. Shri Lalit submitted that the investigation

envisaged under Section 3(3) is participatory investigation and it has nothing

to do with the preliminary inquiry, which can be made by the Committee for

15

satisfying itself whether the particular allegation made against the Judge

constitutes an act of misbehaviour and warrants framing of charge. Learned

senior counsel further submitted that the Committee is not obliged to frame

charges with reference to each and every allegation contained in the notice

of motion and if after making preliminary inquiry, the Committee feels

satisfied that the particular allegation cannot be termed as an act of

misbehaviour, then it has the discretion to not frame charge with reference to

such allegation. Learned senior counsel emphasised that in this case, the

Committee has framed charges after objectively considering the allegations

contained in the notice of motion together with the explanatory note and the

material made available or received by it from various sources as also the

statements of some persons recorded in the course of preliminary inquiry

and the allegation of bias levelled by the petitioner is wholly unfounded. He

submitted that impartiality of the Committee is evinced from the fact that

even though, the notice of motion contained allegations that the petitioner

had passed judicial orders for extraneous reasons, manipulated constitution

of the Benches and made arbitrary appointments and transfers of the staff of

the High Court, charges have not been framed on these allegations. Shri

Lalit submitted that all the charges framed against the petitioner except

charge No.14 have direct nexus with the allegations contained in the notice

of motion and the explanatory note appended thereto. Learned senior

16

counsel argued that even though charge No.14 is not exactly relatable to

what has been stated in the notice of motion, inasmuch as the allegation

contained under the heading "disproportionate pecuniary resources" speaks

of celebration of the marriage of the petitioner's daughter at Bangalore with

extreme opulence, the charge relates to non-payment of bills of the rooms

booked at Madras Race Club and the electricity and illumination expenses,

this minor deviation should not be made a ground for recording a conclusion

that the Committee has acted beyond its jurisdiction. Shri Lalit controverted

the argument of Shri Patil that the view expressed in the minority opinion of

Justice K. Ramaswamy in Krishna Swamy's case should be treated as the

law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution by

pointing out that the majority had specifically disagreed with K.

Ramaswamy, J.

11. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General referred to

the preamble and Section 3 of the Act and argued that the Committee can

certainly make a preliminary inquiry and even record statements of persons

in connection with the allegations for the purpose of prima facie satisfying

itself about the necessity of making further investigation. Shri Malhotra

relied upon the judgment of this Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi

(1955) 1 SCR 1150:AIR 1955 SC 196 and argued that the provisions

17

contained in the Act do not impose any embargo on the making of

preliminary inquiry by the Committee as a prelude to the framing of charges

under Section 3(3).

12. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the intervenor submitted

that the Committee constituted under Section 3(2) is vested with the power

to devise its own procedure for the purpose of making investigation and no

exception can be taken if a preliminary inquiry is made for the purpose of

framing definite charges against the Judge. Shri Bhushan further submitted

that in the absence of statutory bar, the Committee can seek assistance of an

advocate and the Central Government did not commit any illegality by

appointing Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate to assist the Committee.

Learned counsel invited the Court's attention to the report of the Inquiry

Committee headed by Mr. Justice P.B. Sawant, which had inquired into the

allegations of misbehaviour levelled against Justice V. Ramaswami to show

that the Committee had taken the assistance of S/Shri F.S. Nariman and

Rajender Singh, Senior Advocates and Shri Raju Ramachandran, Advocate.

13. We have considered the respective arguments. The questions which

need determination by the Court are:

18

(1) Whether the Committee constituted under Section 3(2) is

entitled to make preliminary inquiry for the purpose of framing

charges under Section 3(3).

(2) Whether the Committee can seek assistance of an advocate for

the purpose of framing the charges.

(3) Whether the charges framed against the petitioner are ultra

vires the allegations contained in the notice of motion presented

by 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.

For deciding question Nos. 1 and 2 which are interlinked, it will be

useful to notice the provisions of Articles 121, 124(4) and (5) and 217(1) of

the Constitution as also the provisions of the Act and the Judges (Inquiry)

Rules, 1969 (for short, "the Rules"), which are as under:

"121. Restriction on discussion in Parliament-No discussion

shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any

Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge

of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to

the President praying for the removal of the Judge as

hereinafter provided.

124. Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court-(4)

A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his

office except by an order of the President passed after an

address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of

the total membership of that House and by a majority of not

less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and

voting has been presented to the President in the same session

19

for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or

incapacity.

(5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the

presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of

the misbehaviour or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4).

217. Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of

a High Court-(1) Every Judge of a High Court shall be

appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal

after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor

of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other

than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court, and

shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as

provided in Article 224, and in any other case, until he attains

the age of sixty-two years:

Provided that-

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) a Judge may be removed from his office by the President in

the manner provided in clause (4) of article 124 for the removal

of a Judge of the Supreme Court;

The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

3. Investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of

Judge by Committee.-(1) If notice is given of a motion for

presenting an address to the President praying for the removal

of a Judge signed,-

(a) In the case of a notice given in the House of the People,

by not less than one hundred members of that House;

(b) In the case of a notice given in the Council of States, by

not less than fifty members of that Council,

then, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman may,

after consulting such persons, if any, as he thinks fit and after

20

considering such materials, if any, as may be available to him

either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same.

(2) If the motion referred to in sub- section (1) is admitted,

the Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman shall keep the

motion pending and constitute as soon as may be for the

purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on which

the removal of a Judge is prayed for, a Committee consisting of

three members of whom-

(a) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justice

and other Judges of the Supreme Court;

(b) one shall be chosen from among the Chief Justices

of the High Courts; and

(c) one shall be a person who is in the opinion of the

Speaker or, as the case may be, the Chairman, a

distinguished jurist:

Provided that where notices of a motion referred to in sub-

section (1) are given on the same day in both Houses of

Parliament, no Committee shall be constituted unless the

motion has been admitted in both Houses and where such

motion has been admitted in both Houses, the Committee shall

be constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman:

Provided further that where notices of a motion as aforesaid are

given in the Houses of Parliament on different dates, the notice

which is given later shall stand rejected.

(3) The Committee shall frame definite charges against the

Judge on the basis of which the investigation is proposed to be

held.

(4) Such charges together with a statement of the grounds on

which each such charge is based shall be communicated to the

Judge and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of

presenting a written statement of defence within such time as

may be specified in this behalf by the Committee.

21

(8) The committee may, after considering the written

statement of the Judge and the medical report, if any, amend the

charges framed under sub-section (3) and in such a case, the

Judge shall be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting a

fresh written statement of defence.

(9) The Central Government may, if required by the Speaker

or the Chairman, or both, as the case may be, appoint an

advocate to conduct the case against the Judge.

4. Report of Committee.-(1) Subject to any rules that may

be made in this behalf, the Committee shall have power to

regulate its own procedure in making the investigation and shall

give a reasonable opportunity to the Judge of cross-examining

witnesses, adducing evidence and of being heard in his defence.

(2) At the conclusion of the investigation, the Committee

shall submit its report to the Speaker or, as the case may be, to

the Chairman, or where the Committee has been constituted

jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman, to both of them,

stating therein its findings on each of the charges separately

with such observation on the whole case as it thinks fit.

(3) The Speaker or the Chairman, or, where the Committee

has been constituted jointly by the Speaker and the Chairman,

both of them, shall cause the report submitted under sub-section

(2) to be laid, as soon as may be, respectively before the House

of the People and the Council of States.

5. Powers of Committee.-For the purpose of making any

investigation under this Act, the Committee shall have the

powers of a civil court, while trying a suit, under the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters,

namely:-

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person

and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

22

(c) receiving evidence on oath;

(d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or

documents;

(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.

The Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969

3. Presiding Officer--The member chosen under clause (a)

of sub-section (2) of Section 3 shall preside over the meetings

of the Inquiry Committee, or, in his absence, the member

chosen under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 3 shall

preside over the meetings of the Inquiry Committee.

6. Objection to charges.--When the Judge appears, he may

object in writing to the sufficiency of the charges framed

against him and if the objection is sustained by the majority of

the members of the Inquiry Committee, the Inquiry Committee

may amend the charges and give the Judge a reasonable

opportunity of presenting a fresh written statement of defence.

7. Plea of Judge.--(1) If the Judge admits that he is guilty of

the misbehaviour, or suffers from the incapacity, specified in

the charges framed against him under sub-section (3) of section

3, the Inquiry Committee shall record such admission and may

state its findings on each of the charges in accordance with such

admission.

(2) If the Judge denies that he is guilty of the misbehaviour, or

suffers from the incapacity, specified in the charges framed

against him under sub-section (3) of section 3, or if he refuses,

or omits, or is unable, to plead or desires that the inquiry should

be made, the Inquiry Committee shall proceed with the inquiry.

9. Report of the Inquiry Committee.-(1) Where the members

of the Inquiry Committee are not unanimous, the report

submitted by the Inquiry Committee under section 4 shall be in

23

accordance with the findings of the majority of the members

thereof.

(2) The presiding officer of the Inquiry Committee shall-

(a) cause its report to the prepared in duplicate,

(b) authenticate each copy of the report by putting his

signature thereon, and

(c) forward, within a period of three months from the date on

which a copy of the charges framed under sub-section (3)

of section 3 is served upon the Judge, or, where no such

service is made, from the date of publication of the notice

referred to in sub-rule (3) of rule 5, the authenticated

copies of the report to the Speaker or Chairman by whom

the Committee was constituted, or where the Committee

was constituted jointly by them, to both of them:

Provided that the Speaker or Chairman, or both of them (where

the Committee was constituted jointly by them), may, for

sufficient cause, extend the time within which the Inquiry

Committee shall submit its report.

10. Recording of evidence.-(1) The evidence of each witness

examined by the Inquiry Committee shall be taken down in

writing under the personal direction and superintendence of the

presiding officer thereof and the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), shall, so far as may be, apply to

the examination of any witness by the Inquiry Committee.

(2) A copy of the evidence, oral and documentary, received by

the Inquiry Committee shall be laid before each House of

Parliament along with the report laid before it under section 4.

11. Facilities to be accorded to a Judge for his defence.-(1)

Every Judge for whose removal a motion has been admitted

shall have a right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal

practitioner of this choice.

24

(2) If the report of the Inquiry Committee contains a finding

that the Judge referred to in sub-rule (1) is not guilty of any

misbehaviour or does not suffer from any incapacity, then the

Central Government shall reimburse such Judge to the extent of

such part of the costs of his defence as the Inquiry Committee

may recommend."

14. Since the provisions of Articles 121 and 124 have already been

interpreted by the Constitution Benches in Sub-Committee on Judicial

Accountability's case and Sarojini Ramaswamy's case, it is not necessary

for us to repeat that exercise except making an observation that in view of

Article 217(1)(b), that interpretation will be equally relevant in the matter of

removal of a Chief Justice or Judge of the High Court. A plain reading of

Article 124(4) and clause (b) of Article 217(1) makes it clear that a Judge of

the Supreme Court or the High Court cannot be removed except by an order

of President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported

by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not

less than two-thirds of the members of the House present and voting has

been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the

ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Article 124(5) lays down that

Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an

address and for investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of

a Judge under clause (4).

25

15. Section 3(1) of the Act lays down that if notice of motion is given by

the prescribed number of members of the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha, as

the case may be, for presenting an address to the President with the prayer

for removal of a Judge then, the Speaker or, as the case may be, the

Chairman can either admit the motion or refuse to admit the same and for

this purpose, he has the discretion to consult any person as he may think fit

and consider the material which may be made available to him. Section 3(2)

lays down that once the notice of motion is admitted, the Speaker or, as the

case may be, the Chairman has to keep the same pending and constitute a

Committee for the purpose of making an investigation into the grounds on

which the removal of a Judge is sought. Section 3(3) envisages framing of

definite charges by the Committee for the purpose of making an

investigation. Section 3(4) lays down that the charges framed by the

Committee together with a statement of the grounds on which each charge is

based shall be communicated to the Judge, who is then entitled to a

reasonable opportunity of filing a written statement of defence. Rule 2(c)

read with Rule 5 prescribes the format and procedure to be followed for

communication of the charges to the Judge. Section 3(8) contemplates

amendment of charges by the Committee. This exercise can be undertaken

after considering the written statement of the Judge. If the charges are

amended, the Judge has to be given opportunity to present a fresh written

26

statement of defence. Section 3(9) envisages appointment, at the instance of

the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, of an advocate to conduct

the case against the Judge. Section 4(1) gives power to the Committee to

regulate its own procedure in making the investigation. The exercise of this

power is subject to the rules, if any, made in that behalf and subject to

compliance of the rules of natural justice which means that the Judge is

given reasonable opportunity of cross-examining witnesses, adducing

evidence and of being heard in his defence. In terms of Section 5, the

Committee has the powers of a civil court in respect of the matters

enumerated therein, i.e., summoning and enforcing the attendance of any

person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production

of documents; receiving evidence on oath; issuing commissions for the

examination of witnesses or documents and such other matters, as may be

prescribed. Section 4(2) read with Rule 9 envisages completion of inquiry

within three months from the date of service of charges upon the Judge and

submission of report to the Speaker or, as the case may be, to the Chairman.

If the Committee is jointly constituted by the Speaker and the Chairman, the

report is required to be submitted to both of them. Rule 9(2) empowers the

Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, to extend the time within

which the Committee is required to submit report. After the report is

27

submitted to the Speaker or the Chairman, the same is required to be laid

before the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

16. An investigation into the allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity of a

Judge is an extremely serious matter. The members of the Lok Sabha or the

Rajya Sabha are men of wisdom. They would submit a notice of motion for

presenting an address to the President of India for removal of a Judge only

when they are prima facie satisfied that there exists tangible material

warranting an investigation into the allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity

of the Judge. When a motion is submitted, the Speaker or the Chairman, as

the case may be, is not bound to admit the same as a matter of course. He

may, after consulting such persons he may think fit and considering the

material, if any made available to him, take decision on the admission of

motion. In a given case, he may refuse to admit the motion. However, if the

motion is admitted, the statute requires that the Speaker or the Chairman, as

the case may be, shall keep the same pending and constitute a Committee

consisting of one from among the Chief Justice and other Judges of the

Supreme Court, one from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts and a

distinguished jurist for making an investigation into the grounds on which

the removal of a Judge is sought.

28

17. Since the members of the Committee are well versed in law and

procedure, the legislature has designedly given substantial degree of

freedom to the Committee to regulate its own procedure in making the

investigation subject, of course, to the rules, if any, made in that behalf. A

conjoint reading of Section 3(4), (8) and second part of Section 4 makes it

clear that while making the investigation, the Committee has to act in

consonance with the rules of natural justice. The Committee is required to

communicate the charges framed under Section 3(3) together with a

statement of the grounds on which the charges are based to the Judge, give

reasonable opportunity to him to present a written statement of defence, to

cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges, to produce

evidence and to be heard in his defence. There is nothing in the Act or the

Rules, which inhibits the Committee from making preliminary inquiry for

the purpose of prima facie satisfying itself that the allegation contained in

the notice of motion warrants framing of one or more charges against the

Judge. The use of the expression "definite charges" in Section 3(3) gives a

clear indication that before framing the charges, the Committee must apply

mind to the allegations contained in the notice of motion and the

accompanying material for the purpose of forming an opinion that a case is

made out for framing charge. The statute does not contemplate that the

Committee should frame charges against the Judge with reference to all the

29

allegations enumerated in the notice of motion or the accompanying

statement without even prima facie looking into the nature of allegations and

satisfying itself that there is justification for framing the particular charges.

It will be naove to contend that the Committee has no discretion in the matter

of framing charges. Rather, the Committee is duty bound to carefully

scrutinise the material forming part of the notice of motion and then frame

definite charges. The Committee can also receive other material which may

support or contradict the allegations enumerated in the notice of motion. In

an appropriate case, the Committee can require any person including the one

who may have supplied material to the members of the Lok Sabha or the

Rajya Sabha, as the case may be, to give clarification on any particular point

or make available authentic copies of the documents. The Committee can

also call upon such person to file affidavit or make a statement and summon

him at the stage of investigation so that the Judge may get an opportunity to

cross-examine him. In our view, Shri U.U. Lalit is right in his submission

that the investigation contemplated under Section 3 is a participatory

investigation in which the Judge against whom charges are framed is entitled

to full opportunity to defend himself and there is no bar against making of

preliminary inquiry by the Committee as a prelude to the framing of definite

charges under Section 3(3).

30

18. As a corollary to the above discussion, we hold that the procedure

adopted by the Committee cannot be faulted on the ground that it made

preliminary inquiry before framing charges against the petitioner and relied

upon the material received from various sources and recorded statement of

some persons. If we were to accept the submission of Shri Patil that before

framing definite charges, the Committee cannot make preliminary inquiry,

then it would have been obliged to frame charges with reference to all the

allegations including those relating to the judicial orders passed by the

petitioner and administrative power exercised by him in the capacity of the

Chief Justice and this could easily be construed as a direct encroachment

upon the independence of the judiciary.

19. Although, reference to Section 3(9) of the Act in the order passed by

the Central Government for appointment of Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate

to assist the Committee appears to be wholly unnecessary because that

section contemplates appointment of an advocate to conduct the case against

the Judge, if the Central Government is ordained to do so by the Speaker or

the Chairman, or both, as the case may be, this flaw in the order is not fatal

to the proceedings held so far because in exercise of the power vested in it to

regulate its procedure the Committee could suo motu seek assistance of an

advocate. The Committee constituted under Section 3(2) consists of one

31

person chosen from among the Chief Justice and other Judges of the

Supreme Court, one from among the Chief Justices of the High Courts and

one distinguished jurist. In the very nature of their functioning, the Chief

Justice or the Judge of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the High

Court cannot on their own make investigation and assume the role of the

prosecutor. The same is true of the distinguished jurist appointed under

Section 3(2)(c). They would always need assistance of a person who

possesses a legally trained mind. That person has to assist the Committee in

various matters including recording of evidence. The Judge against whom

the investigation is made is entitled to seek assistance of an advocate and

there is no likelihood of any prejudice being suffered by him if the

Committee seeks assistance of an advocate for effectively discharging the

functions entrusted to it under the Act. Therefore, we do not think that the

petitioner is entitled to seek annulment of the proceedings of the Committee

on the ground that the Central Government had wrongly invoked Section

3(9) for appointing Shri U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate to assist the

Committee.

20. Before proceeding further, we may consider it appropriate to deal with

an ancillary submission made by Shri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, who was

supported by Shri A. Sharan, senior counsel, who appeared on behalf of the

32

petitioner in Writ Petition No.217 of 2011 that the opinion expressed by K.

Ramaswamy, J. in his dissenting judgment in Krishna Swamy's case should

be treated as the law declared by this Court because majority of the

Constitution Bench did not deal with the questions formulated in order dated

February 27, 1992 passed by the 3-Judge Bench. In this context, it is

apposite to note that majority of the Constitution Bench had expressly

disagreed with the exposition of law made by K. Ramaswamy, J. This is

evinced from paragraph 27 of the judgment, which is extracted below:

"27. 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 constitutional one, unless it is necessary

to do so, we would prefer to reserve our opinion on the

remaining questions for the occasion, if any, in the future when

they arise for decision."

Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

21. We shall now take up the third question. According to Mr. Basava

Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, 4 of the 14 charges

33

framed by the Committee, i.e., charge Nos. 3, 5, 13 and 14, which are

extracted below are beyond the scope of the allegations enumerated in the

notice of motion:

"CHARGE NO.3

(RECEIVING OF GIFTS AND ADVANCES

UNILATERALLY ON A REGULAR BASIS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, further charge against you is that

after your elevation as a Judge of the High Court you, your wife

and daughters and mother-in-law have been recipients of

advances and gifts both in the form of money and valuable

property in a regular way. The flow of these gifts and advances

that regularly come to you, your wife, daughters and mother in

law, seemingly from certain relatives, friends and associates is

completely one sided and unilateral. There is hardly, if any at

all, gift or advance made by you in favour of any of your

donors. It may also be stated that practically in all cases, there

is an apparent connection between the gifts and advances

coming to you, your wife, daughters and your mother in law

and acquisition of valuable and expensive property by you and

your family members or any major expenses undertaken by

you, your wife or daughters.

In charge No.1 it is stated that these gifts and advances are

nothing but your income from undisclosed sources. Even

otherwise, the receipt of large sums and valuable properties as

gifts on a regular basis and completely unilaterally is a gross

abuse of the constitutional office held by you and amounts to

judicial misdemeanour and misbehaviour. (Details of gifts and

advances are given in the Ground to this Charge.)

34

CHARGE NO.5

(TAKING HORTICULTURE LOANS ON FALSE

GROUNDS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, further charge against you is

that agricultural loans were taken from Allahabad Bank, George

Tower Branch, Chennai by you and your wife Dr. (Mrs.)

Vinodhini Dinakaran and further at your instance and for your

benefit also in the names of the four bogus companies, namely,

M/s Dear Lands India Pvt. Ltd., M/s Canaan Gardens Pvt. Ltd.,

M/s Amudham Gardens Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Amirtham Gardens

Pvt. Ltd. The professed purpose of the loans was to develop

horticulture at the Kaverirajapuram lands but actually neither

the ostensible applicants (the four companies) nor the professed

purpose was true and correctly stated. The object and purpose

of the loan was first to launder the money derived from your

undisclosed and illegitimate sources (see charge no.1) and

second to misappropriate the amount of subsidy granted by the

National Horticulture Board to the extent of 20% of the eligible

project cost that came as part of the scheme of the loan. The

loans were obtained by giving incorrect and false information

on a number of issues on the basis of which the bank would

grant loan besides misrepresenting the very purpose of the

loans. The records show that even though the falsehood of the

statements and declarations made in the loan applications

became evident at an early stage, nevertheless the bank

authorities proceeded to grant the loans, apparently under the

undue influence exercised by you by misusing your position as

a judge of the Madras High Court.

The loans were not taken for development or promotion

of horticulture at the Kaverirajapuram lands is evident from the

fact that in all cases repayment of the loans were largely made

within a period of four to eight months from the grant of the

loans even though under the scheme the repayment would start

from the fourth year and would be over by the end of the eighth

year. Even though the subsidy by the National Horticulture

Board would constitute last instalment for the repayment of the

loan, the amounts of subsidy were released within eight months

35

and long before the last instalments for the repayment of the

loans were due.

From the records it is evident that the procurement of the loans

did not constitute an honest and bona fide transaction but the

loans were taken, at your instance and for your benefit for

undisclosed and illegal purposes. The procurement of the bank

loans was thus an act of gross misconduct and abuse of your

position as a judge of the High Court.

CHARGE NO.13

(OMMISSION TO FILE WEALTH TAX RETURNS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran further charge against you is that

you in your own individual capacity and as the de facto

beneficiary of the assets created in the hands of the benamidars

and your wife (See Charge Nos.1 & 2) despite being in

possession of assets (assets in the nature of huge balance of

cash in hand, urban land, and house properties) and deemed

assets, failed to file Wealth Tax returns and pay appropriate

Wealth tax in respect of such assets, which were clearly

exigible to Wealth Tax, such failure to heed a statutory

requirement under the law being an omission unbecoming your

status of a high constitutional authority and amounts to

misconduct.

CHARGE NO.14

(NON PAYMENT OF BILLS)

Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran further charge against you is

that you did not pay the bills of Madras Race Club for booking

11 rooms and for electricity and illumination charges for the

wedding reception of your daughter Amudhaporkodi on

20.12.2008. The charge is that though the bookings were made

by Mr. Kaliya Perumal a member of the club, it was for the use

and occupation by your instance for your guests/friends etc.

And hence, it is you who is liable for making payment to the

36

club. The club bills remained unpaid at least till October, 2010.

Non payment of these bills despite considerable efflux of time

is unbecoming of a judge and amounts to misbehaviour on your

part."

22. Although, the language of charges No.3, 5 and 13 and the grounds

forming part of these charges are not exactly identical to the allegations

contained in the notice of motion, but if the same are read with the

explanatory note, it becomes clear that all these charges are founded on the

details contained in paragraphs (i) to (iii) of the explanatory note. However,

we do not consider it proper to discuss in detail the substance of the charges

framed against the petitioner because the investigation being made by the

Committee is at a preliminary stage and any observation by this Court may

prejudice the cause of the petitioner. At the same time, we have no

hesitation in holding that by framing charges No.3, 5 and 13, the Committee

did not traverse beyond the scope of the allegations.

23. No doubt, charge No.14 does not have direct traces in the allegations

contained in the notice of motion and the explanatory note, but this minor

deviation does not warrant quashing of all the charges and it will be open to

the petitioner to contend before the Committee that charge No.14 should be

37

ignored because the same is not founded on the allegations contained in the

notice of motion or the explanatory note.

24. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

..........................................J.

[G.S. Singhvi]

...........................................J.

[Chandramauli Kumar Prasad]

New Delhi

August 26, 2011.