As per the resolution, the following main allegations are levelled against the CJI:

First, the facts and circumstances relating to the Prasad Education Trust case, show prima facie evidence suggesting that Chief Justice Dipak Mishra may have been involved in the conspiracy of paying illegal gratification in the case, which at least warrants a thorough investigation.

Secondly, the Chief Justice Dipak Mishra dealt on the administrative as well as judicial side, with a writ petition, which sought an investigation into a matter in which he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation, since he had presided over the bench, which had dealt with this case, and passed order in the case of Prasad Education Trust and thus violated the first principle of the Code of Conduct for Judges.

Thirdly, the Chief Justice Dipak Mishra has abused his administrative authority as master of roster to arbitrarily assign individual cases of particular advocates in important politically sensitive cases to select judges, in order to achieve a pre-determined outcome.

It is believed that members from most opposition parties including Congress, DMK, NCP, Left Parties, Samajwadi Party, and even Trinamool Congress are on board to bring the impeachment motion against the CJI in Parliament.

In India, a judge of the Supreme Court can be removed only by the Parliament, and that too only on two grounds, i.e., proved misbehaviour or incapacity, as per Article 124(4) of the Constitution. Pursuant to Article 125, the Parliament enacted the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 to lay down the procedure for investigation into allegations against a Supreme Court judge.

As per the Act, once a notice of impeachment is given, either in Lok Sabha or in Rajya Sabha, it is up to the Speaker of the House to decide whether to admit or reject the motion, based on consultation with persons or consideration of materials, as she thinks fit. If the Speaker decides to accept the motion, then a Committee is set up for investigating into the grounds made for removal of the judge, which comprises of a judge from the Supreme Court (chosen by the CJI), Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist. Thereafter, the Committee shall frame definite charges against the concerned judge, who shall be given an opportunity to reply to such charges, and give a written statement in defence. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the Committee shall present its report to the Speaker about its findings on the charges. If the Committee’s findings do not prove the grounds aginst the judge, then no action needs to be taken. But if the allegations are proved against the judge, then the Committee’s Report along with original notice have to be adopted by the Parliament by a majority of total members of the House, and by a majority of not less than two-thirds members present and voting. If it succeeds, then it is placed before the President of India for final assent.

Given the complicated procedure involved, it is uncertain whether the first motion against the CJI would be accepted by the Speaker. Also, there would be questions regarding the propriety of the Speaker’s decision, considering how the Government has supported the present CJI in the aftermath of the four judges’ press conference in January, 2018. Anticipating the speaker’s reluctance, the opposition MPs are keen to approach the Supreme Court, if the Speaker denies the motion. Further, even in terms of the composition of the Inquiry Committee, complications would arise, since the CJI himself is being sought to be impeached, so the judge on the Committee has to be appointed by the senior most judges, who all have spoken out against the incumbent CJI.

The history of impeachment against judges has only been a history of ‘attempts’ and never ever a judge has been successfully impeached by the Parliament of India. The closest one has come was in the case of Justice V. Ramaswamy in 1991, who was found guilty of most of the charges against him by the Inquiry Committee, but the impeachment motion failed at the final stage, owing to insufficient votes.

In the present case, even if the impeachment does not happen, the fact that a sitting Chief Justice of India would even face the threat of impeachment is a wake up call for all of us citizens to take notice of the entrenched rot that has set in the judiciary, and how the independence of the judiciary is being compromised, by increasing executive encroachments. (IPA Service)