Enquiry against Justice Verma under Judges Enquiry Act. - Constitutional Surrealism

S.P. Shankar, Senior Advocate, Bengaluru

Acting on the request made by required number of Members of Rajya Sabha, Her Excellency, the President of India has constituted a committee to investigate under Section 3 of Act into misbehaviour or incapacity of Justice Verma.

It is a matter of record that before a request was made by the Members of Rajya Sabha, Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed and secured a report of the In-house Committee consisting of three Hon’ble Judges. The said report of In-house Committee had indicted  Justice Verma. Copy of the report was served on the said Judge seeking his explanation. It is a matter of record that he denied and disputed the findings of the Inhouse committee. A writ petition presented by him against the findings of the Committee was rejected. Virtually a stalemate was created by the denial of the correctness of the report of Inhouse committee by the said Judge on one hand and the disinclination of the court to interfere with the said findings on the other. 

Resort being had to Section 3 of Act 51 of 1968 and in constituting a Committee in terms of Section 3(2) of Act 51 of 1968, the committee is in place, to aid and assist proceedings that may lead to impeachment of the Judge in terms of Article 217 R/w Article 218.

Main Purpose of the Act is to regulate the procedure for investigation and  to secure proof of misbehaviour or incapacity of Judge and for the presentation of an address by Parliament to the President and matters connected therewith.  The term ‘Committee’ is defined in 2(b) to mean “a Committee constituted under Section 3”. What is to be investigated is “misbehaviour or incapacity of Judge, by Committee”. As noted earlier the Main purpose of the Act is to conduct investigation to secure proof of misbehaviour of the judge, accused of such misbehaviour. It is not necessary to go into the aspect of misbehaviour as it is relatable to apparent corruption allegedly possessing huge cash, a good portion of which was burnt. How and why it is burnt comes within the term misbehaviour. It is significant that the term ‘misbehaviour’ is not defined under the Act. It is clear that the issue is not incapacity or want of capacity. The Committee has to probe, secure and ascertain proof of misbehaviour of judge for the purpose of presentation of an address by Parliament to the President and the matters connected therewith.

It is more than apparent that the “Committee” would not propose any punishment or suggest means of reformation or cure for the misbehaviour of the Judge. Constitution provides that the distinguished President of India alone can take action on the report of investigation and proof of misbehaviour secured by the committee under Section 3 of the Act.

A question would arise as to the probative value to be given to the findings of In-house committee, in the perspective of the fact that findings of the Inhouse committee were  declined to be interfered with.

A verbal and sound analysis  of Main Purpose and the ingredients of Section 3 of the Act would suggest and imply that the Committee has to conduct an investigation, gather and assimilate the proof of misbehaviour and then submit a report to President of India, to address the Parliament for further action.

For purpose of securing the desired result, the Committee alone is responsible for investigation and securing proof of misbehaviour, relegating the report of In house committee into abysmal  background. In other words, the report of in house committee would take a step backward and would either cause itself to disappear or allow it be shelved if not ignored. And what cost ?

The wisdom of the Supreme court in appointing an inhouse committee is not to be faulted.  Supreme court did not expect the Judge to defy and dispute the findings and even impugn the said finding seeking judicial review of the correctness of the Report.

The question that arises or would evolve a debate to maintain Constitutional morality and Constitutional surrealism as to what is required to be done within the four corners of Constitution of India and Act 51of 68.

The most inconvenient part is the task assigned to the committee under Section 3 of the Act to investigate, secure and mop up proof of alleged misbehaviour of the Judge and present a report    on which the president is to address the parliament on impeachment of the judge. Main Purpose of the Act would be relevant to notice that committee has to investigate  donning the robes of a prosecutor. Secure and evaluate the proof of alleged misbehaviour, assuming the role of a civil judge and in suggesting an address by the President in Parliament virtually to impeach the Judge. The committee under Section 3 is not apparently armed with means of investigation and it has fall back on another agency to investigate and gather evidence. Evaluation of the evidence and presentation of an address to the Parliament is less odious compared to the investigation into and evaluation of material evidence. All these aspects are directly related to tenure of service of Justice Verma. If he were to attain superannuation, in the meanwhile grammar of law would take care. If the committee under Section 3 is to work without any break or known means of stopping or breaking the work, things may augur well.

The issue as to whether the “committee” has to take multiple roles  to go through  this exercise is to be resolved first. What is the probative value of the material collected by “In-house Committee”? whether the finding of In-house committee would bind the committee under Section 3 of the Act 51 of 1968.

Reasons are not far to seek. “Committee under Section 3” is a special committee which would perform constitutional duty in terms of Article 217 of Constitution of India  and the same id n not answerable to any one else. Under Act 51 of 1968, “Report of the Committee” is brought under rigour of Section 4 and has to conform to and abide by “exercise” mentioned in the said Section 4 of the Act. Report is to be laid before House of People or Council of States. Section 6 ordains and prescribes consideration of the report and presentation of an address for removal of a Judge. Section 5 denotes the powers of the committee in the matter of investigation under Act 51 of 1968, exercise of powers of civil court in regard to what are enumerated as classes (a ) to ( e) of Section 5 of the Act. These powers are not conceded in favour of the Inhouse Panel” appointed by Chief Justice of India. Hence the intrinsic and probative value attachable to the “Section 3 Committee” are not attributed to the findings of the Inhouse Committee. In short, the findings of in house committee are not binding on Section 3 committee and cannot be availed to record any finding in terms of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Act 51 of 1968. Besides, section 3 of Committee has statutory sanction and has a “Status as well as duty” under Articles 217 of Constitution of India.