Even as self-proclaimed Guru Asaram Bapu has been sentenced for life in jail by a Jodhpur court and the election campaign for Karnataka state assembly elections is reaching its peak, the BJP grouping in Parliament was left red-faced as Vice President Venkaiah Naidu delivered his verdict trashing the notice of impeachment motion against the sitting Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, submitted by a united opposition on the floor of the Rajya Sabha. Since then, a huge controversy has erupted in elite circles over the intention behind Naidu’s rejection and the validity of his action, as the fate of the notice was not decided on the floor of the house. Naidu, who is the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha by virtue of being the Vice-President, stirred a hornet’s nest last Monday when he summarily rejected the notice. Yes, the honourable Chairman is very much within his rights to take the final decision as the power to accept or reject permission for conduct of any business that is likely to come up for deliberation in the House lies with the Presiding Authority.
This means that once this order was delivered, the issue should have died. However, going by the political developments and the news trickling in from Delhi, it seems that the opposition parties are firm on their demand to proceed with the impeachment motion and if the Chairman does not accommodate them, they are determined to approach the Supreme Court to seek ‘justice’. This is an unprecedented situation where the chief custodian of Indian justice is likely to stand in the dock.
CJI in the dock
There have been instances when impeachment procedures were carried out in either or both the Houses against sitting judges. However, never before the Chief Justice has been pulled into the box meant for the accused. But that is not all. Now, if the united opposition really approaches the highest court of India to seek redressal against Naidu’s order, the question is who would decide the Bench to hear the argument? This is because the ‘Master of the Roaster’ is the Chief Justice and here the matter involves him. This means that either Justice Misra would have to assign the Bench to hear the matter against him or would have to recues his roaster assigning job at least for some time. However, the bigger issue is different. Though by the letter of the rule book of Rajya Sabha conduct, Naidu is very much within his framework to reject the notice before it came up before the House, going by the spirit of the rules, he should have allowed the Rajya Sabha members to decide the fate of the impeachment motion notice.
Being the Chairman of the Upper House, Naidu was expected to go beyond party lines and act according to his own conscience and the rich traditions and norms of the House. However, here the Opposition Unity, led by the Congress, has given room to the perception that Naidu has acted as a BJP activist and towed the party line rather than playing a non-partisan role. Naidu will have to answer these questions, when the matter comes up before the Supreme Court. Questions are many and all of them deserve answers. Those 77 MPs Rajya Sabha, who signed the petition to impeach the CJI, have accused him of impropriety in connection with an education trust.
On this, Naidu, in his ‘judgement,’ mentions that petitioners were unsure of their ‘own case’ as they used words like ‘may have been’ involved in the conspiracy. This seems to be a weak argument as Naidu is banking on usage of words rather than delving into the ‘deep’ meaning involved in it. There are many such arguments on which counter arguments have been furnished in Naidu’s 10-page refusal letter.
Does this mean that Naidu did not want to allow the notice of the motion as he was scared of losing the battle on the floor of the House? Detractors say that though the BJP is now the ‘single largest party’ in the Rajya Sabha also, it does not enjoy the ‘majority’ on its own. Considering the fact that many constituents of the ruling NDA are not satisfied with the BJP’s attitude and parties like Talugu Desam have pulled out of the NDA, there is a possibility that these parties would join the opposition chorus and bitterly criticise the ruling side. Perhaps, Naidu being a staunch BJP champion till he took up the office of the Vice President, did not want to see his erstwhile party in a quandary.
Going by the rule book of Parliamentary practices, ideally, once the presiding authority finds that the notice of the motion is in order and enjoys the support of required number of members, it should allow the House to decide its fate. Instead Naidu went on saying that charges indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption and do not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This argument is farfetched. The petition is not expected to provide all evidences in detail. The details could be produced at the time of deliberation on the floor of the House. If ‘proofs beyond reasonable doubts’ are to be produced in the notice itself, there was no need to bring this topic on the floor of Rajya Sabha.
Leader of Integrity
What is significant and important in this context is the fact that Naidu is a leader of integrity. I had the opportunity to work with him in the Rajya Sabha for six long years, where I had first-hand experience of his commitment to the cause of the nation and his faith in the Constitution. However, it seems, under pressure of party bosses, he succumbed and faltered in discharging his duty as the custodian of the faith and repository of the trust of the people.
If persons of high esteem, status and position also succumb to extraneous pressures, the basic pillars of democracy would be in deep trouble. That is the cause of real worry.
The writer is a political analyst and
former Member of Parliament (RS).
