Case Note & Summary
The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitution of an Inquiry Committee set up under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, to investigate allegations of misbehavior against the petitioner, who was the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner's grievances stemmed from the inclusion of respondent No.3, a Senior Advocate, in the Committee, alleging bias due to prior public statements against his elevation to the Supreme Court. The background included a motion for removal initiated by fifty members of the Rajya Sabha, citing acts of misbehavior. The petitioner contended that the Committee's proceedings were null and void due to respondent No.3's prior involvement and expressed views against him. The court examined the timeline of events, including the petitioner's communications with the Vice-President and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and the subsequent formation and reconstitution of the Committee. The court noted that the petitioner had not raised objections to respondent No.3's inclusion until after receiving notice of the charges, indicating a lack of genuine concern for bias. The court emphasized the importance of judicial accountability and the procedural integrity of the Inquiry Committee, ultimately dismissing the petition and allowing the Committee to proceed with its investigation. The decision underscored the balance between judicial independence and accountability, affirming the constitutionality of the Inquiry process under the Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Accountability - Inquiry Committee's Constitution - Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, Section 3(2) - The petitioner challenged the inclusion of a member in the Inquiry Committee on grounds of bias, claiming prior involvement against him. The court held that the objections raised were belated and lacked merit, affirming the Committee's constitution and its authority to proceed with the inquiry (Paras 1-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Inquiry Committee constituted under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, vitiated the proceedings due to alleged bias.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the constitution of the Inquiry Committee and allowing it to proceed with its investigation into the allegations against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Judicial accountability
- Inquiry Committee
- Bias
- Article 32
- Judges (Inquiry) Act
- 1968
