New Delhi: In the wake of dismissal of petitions by the bench headed by the Chief Justice Of India, Dipak Misra, 70 opposition parties have come together with an impeachment motion against the CJI Misra. The opposition has submitted a petition to the Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, also the Rajya Sabha chairman.
Impeachment of the Judge
According to the constitution, the impeachment of the judge falls under Article 124 (4) of Constitution of India which deals with the impeachment of a judge. “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 for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.”
This is the first time in the history of independent India that a charge sheet has been filed for the impeachment for the Chief Justice of India.
— INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) April 20, 2018
5 Charges against Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra
- The facts and circumstances relating to the Prasad Educational Trust case show prima facie evidence suggesting that Chief Justice Dipak Misra may have been involved in the conspiracy of paying illegal gratification, which at least warrants a thorough investigation.
- That Chief Justice Dipak Misra dealt, on the administrative as well as judicial side, with a writ petition which sought investigation into a matter in which he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation since he had presided over every bench which had dealt with the case and passed orders in the case of Prasad Educational Trust, and thus violated the first principle of the Code of Conduct for judges.
- That Chief Justice Dipak Misra appears to have antedated an administrative order dated 6 November 2017, which amounts to a serious act of forgery/fabrication.
- That Chief Justice Dipak Misra acquired land when he was an advocate, by giving an affidavit that was found to be false and, despite the orders of the ADM cancelling the allotment in 1985, surrendered the said land only in 2012 after he was elevated to the Supreme Court.
- That Chief Justice Dipak Misra has abused his administrative authority as master of roster to arbitrarily assign individual cases of particular advocates in politically sensitive cases to select judges in order to achieve a predetermined outcome.