Petition challenging Naidu's decision on CJI impeachment would open a can of worms: Raju Ramachandran

NEW DELHI: If the opposition files a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s move to reject the impeachment motion, who would deal with it administratively? Though the CJI is the master of the roster, the impeachment petition is against him. The impeachment petition mentions next four senior judges’ disapproval of CJI allotting cases and that makes them ‘interested’ parties.

As per a 1991 SC judgment, decision on how a presiding officer deals with a judge’s impeachment motion is open to judicial review as the House’s presiding officer is only acting as a statutory authority before the process actually goes to Parliament, says senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan. Once the statutory process ends, it becomes an issue of parliamentary privilege and SC will not interfere till the process ends.

The judge concerned can, however, challenge his removal in court after Parliament completes its process. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said a petition challenging the RS Chairman would open a can of worms. “Will the master of the roster principle apply here?” If the CJI cannot deal with the issue, as it involves a conflict of interest, the others can’t too, lawyers said, speculating about the possible course of action.


If the CJI desists from dealing with the issue, both on the administrative and the judicial side, the petition may go to the next senior judge after the 4 ‘dissenters’, justice AK Sikri. But he has already expressed concern over the manner in which the process had been publicised by politicians. In response to a PIL, he sought the assistance of the AG after the petition urged the court to lay down guidelines to keep the process confidential till the panel constituted by House presiding officer finds the judge guilty.