Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a practising advocate, filed a public interest litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ restraining the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, the Bombay Bar Association, and the Advocates' Association of Western India from coercing Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, to resign from his office. The petitioner also sought an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into allegations of financial impropriety against the Chief Justice and, if found true, a direction to the Speaker of Lok Sabha to initiate removal proceedings under Article 124(4) and (5) read with Article 218 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. On March 24, 1995, the Supreme Court issued notice to the three Bar associations, rejected the interim prayer not to give effect to the Chief Justice's resignation, and issued notice to the Attorney General for India and the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The Bombay Bar Association filed a counter-affidavit through its President, explaining that from late 1994 there was considerable agitation among its members about certain persons allegedly influencing the Chief Justice. It was alleged that the Chief Justice had negotiated with a foreign publisher for royalty of US$80,000 for a book titled 'Muslim Law and the Constitution', an amount considered disproportionate for an academic work, raising suspicions that the payment was for reasons other than the ostensible purpose. The Bar associations passed resolutions demanding the Chief Justice's resignation forthwith. The Chief Justice, after first indicating he would resign within a week, later did not honour that assurance, leading the Bombay Bar Association to pass a resolution with an overwhelming majority of 185 out of 207 permanent members. The petitioner argued that the Bar's actions were unknown to law, constituted forced resignation, and were unconstitutional, undermining judicial independence. The respondent Bar associations contended that their resolutions were passed in the interest of the institution to protect the integrity of the judiciary, given the serious doubts about the Chief Justice's conduct. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and the Attorney General, deprecated the pressure tactics of the Bar associations, holding that the constitutional scheme provides a specific procedure for removal of judges and that Bar associations have no authority to demand a judge's resignation. The Court emphasized that judges are not to be judged by the Bar and that such collective pressure destroys the very foundation of democratic polity. The Court observed that accusations against a judge require proper investigation by an independent agency before any action can be taken under Article 124(4). Since the Chief Justice had already resigned, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the declaration that Bar associations cannot coerce a judge to resign and that any such action is unconstitutional and deleterious to judicial independence.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Independence of Judiciary - Removal of High Court Judge - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 124(4), 124(5), 217(1) proviso (a), 218 and Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - The constitutional scheme provides only for removal of a High Court judge by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by special majority on ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. Bar associations have no role in this process; passing resolutions demanding a judge's resignation amounted to unconstitutional coercion and was unknown to law. Held that forced resignation is not recognized by law and is deleterious to the independence of the judiciary (Paras not mentioned). B) Legal Profession - Role of Bar Associations - Professional Conduct and Limits of Bar Authority - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 124 and 217; Advocates Act, 1961 (implied) - Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, Bombay Bar Association, and Advocates' Association of Western India passed resolutions demanding the Chief Justice's resignation based on allegations of financial impropriety. The Court observed that judges are not to be judged by the Bar, and collective pressure rudely shakes the confidence and competence of judges of integrity, ability, moral vigour and ethical firmness. Held that pressure tactics by the Bar require to be nibbed in the bud (Paras not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Public Interest Litigation - Jurisdiction and Proper Investigation of Allegations Against a Judge - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32; Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 - Petitioner sought a CBI investigation into allegations against the Chief Justice and a direction to the Speaker, Lok Sabha to initiate removal proceedings if allegations were found true. The Court issued notice to respondents 2 to 4 and the Attorney General, but did not order immediate investigation, emphasizing that accusations against a judge require proper investigation by an independent agency before any action under Article 124(4) could be contemplated. Held that the correctness of allegations must be established through lawful procedure, not by Bar resolutions (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Bar associations and their members have the legal right to pass resolutions demanding a sitting High Court judge's resignation; whether the alleged coercion of the Chief Justice to resign violates the independence of judiciary and the prescribed constitutional procedure for removal of judges; whether the Supreme Court should order an investigation by CBI into allegations against the Chief Justice or direct initiation of removal proceedings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that Bar associations cannot coerce a judge to resign; such resolutions are unconstitutional and undermine judicial independence. The Court observed that judges are not to be judged by the Bar and that the constitutional scheme provides a specific procedure for removal of judges under Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Since the Chief Justice had already resigned, no further directions were necessary, and the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Law Points
- Independence of judiciary
- removal of High Court judge only under Article 124(4) and Judges (Inquiry) Act
- 1968
- Bar associations cannot force resignation of a judge
- judges not to be judged by the Bar
- pressure tactics by Bar are unconstitutional
