2011 (7) TMI 1358 - SC - Indian Laws

Removal from the post of then Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court - Committed acts of mis-behaviour - Prayers to quash order passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) u/s 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968 ( the Act ) - objection to the inclusion of respondent No.3-Shri P.P. Rao Senior Advocate Supreme Court of India in the Committee u/s 3(2)(c) - Test of disqualification by apparent bias - HELD THAT - A reasonable objective and informed person may say that respondent No.3 would not have opposed elevation of the petitioner if he was not satisfied that there was some substance in the allegations levelled against him. It is true that the Judges and lawyers are trained to be objective and have the capacity to decipher grain from the chaff truth from the falsehood and we have no doubt that respondent No.3 possesses these qualities. We also agree with the Committee that objection by both sides perhaps alone apart from anything else is sufficient to confirm his impartiality . However the issue of bias of respondent No.3 has not to be seen from the view point of this Court or for that matter the Committee. It has to be seen from the angle of a reasonable objective and informed person. What opinion he would form It is his apprehension which is of paramount importance. From the facts narrated in the earlier part of the judgment it can be said that petitioner s apprehension of likelihood of bias against respondent No.3 is reasonable and not fanciful though in fact he may not be biased. Belated plea taken by the petitioner that by virtue of his active participation in the meeting held by the Bar Association of India respondent No.3 will be deemed to be biased against him does not merit acceptance. It is also significant to note that respondent No.3 had nothing personal against the petitioner. He had taken part in the seminar as Vice-President of the Association. The concern shown by senior members of the Bar including respondent No.3 in the matter of elevation of the petitioner who is alleged to have misused his position as a Judge and as Chief Justice of the High Court for material gains was not actuated by ulterior motive. They genuinely felt that the allegations made against the petitioner need investigation. After the seminar respondent No.3 is not shown to have done anything which may give slightest impression to any person of reasonable prudence that he was ill-disposed against the petitioner. Rather as per the petitioner s own statement he had met respondent No.3 at the latter s residence on 6.12.2009 and was convinced that the latter had nothing against him. This being the position it is not possible to entertain the petitioner s plea that constitution of the Committee should be declared nullity on the ground that respondent No.3 is biased against him and order dated 24.4.2011 be quashed. We cannot predicate the result of the representation but such representation would have given an opportunity to the Chairman to consider the grievance made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision as he had done in March 2010 when respondent No.3 had sought recusal from the Committee in the wake of demand made by a section of the Bar which had erroneously assumed that the petitioner had consulted respondent No.3. However the fact of the matter is that the petitioner never thought that respondent No.3 was prejudiced or ill-disposed against him and this is the reason why he did not raise objection till April 2011 against the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee. This leads to an irresistible inference that the petitioner had waived his right to object to the appointment of respondent No.3 as member of the Committee. The right available to the petitioner to object to the appointment of respondent No.3 in the Committee was personal to him and it was always open to him to waive the same. In conclusion we hold that belated raising of objection against inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee u/s 3(2) appears to be a calculated move on the petitioner s part. He is an intelligent person and knows that in terms of Rule 9(2)(c) of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules 1969 the Presiding Officer of the Committee is required to forward the report to the Chairman within a period of three months from the date the charges framed u/s 3(3) of the Act were served upon him. Therefore he wants to adopt every possible tactic to delay the submission of report which may in all probability compel the Committee to make a request to the Chairman to extend the time in terms of proviso to Rule 9(2)(c). This Court or for that reason no Court can render assistance to the petitioner in a petition filed with the sole object of delaying finalisation of the inquiry. However keeping in view our finding on the issue of bias we would request the Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of respondent No.3. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner have progressed only to the stage of framing of charges and the Committee is yet to record its findings on the charges and submit report. Therefore nomination of another jurist will not hamper the proceedings of the Committee and the reconstituted Committee shall be entitled to proceed on the charges already framed against the petitioner. In the result the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Inquiry Committee.
2. Allegations of bias against respondent No.3.
3. Waiver of the right to object to the inclusion of respondent No.3.
4. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Inquiry Committee:

The petitioner challenged the inclusion of respondent No.3, a Senior Advocate, in the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The petitioner argued that respondent No.3 had previously expressed views against his elevation to the Supreme Court, which should disqualify him from being part of the Committee. The Committee, however, found that objections had been raised against respondent No.3 by both sides, which confirmed his impartiality. The Supreme Court noted that the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had appointed respondent No.3 due to his expertise and long experience as an eminent advocate.

2. Allegations of bias against respondent No.3:

The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 was biased due to his active participation in a seminar where he opposed the petitioner's elevation to the Supreme Court and drafted a resolution to that effect. The Court examined the rule against bias, emphasizing that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. The Court concluded that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was reasonable and not fanciful, considering respondent No.3's prior involvement in opposing the petitioner's elevation.

3. Waiver of the right to object to the inclusion of respondent No.3:

The petitioner did not raise any objection to respondent No.3's inclusion in the Committee until after receiving the notice dated 16.3.2011, despite being aware of the Committee's composition since January 2010. The Court held that the petitioner's knowledgeful silence for almost ten months indicated a waiver of his right to object. The Court referred to the principle that a person can waive the advantage of a law made solely for their benefit and protection, as long as it does not infringe public right or policy.

4. Compliance with the principles of natural justice:

The Court discussed the principles of natural justice, particularly the rule against bias, which requires that a judge should be impartial and free from bias. The Court emphasized that the test for bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The Court found that the petitioner's apprehension of bias was reasonable, given respondent No.3's prior actions. However, the Court also noted that the petitioner's delay in raising the objection indicated a calculated move to delay the inquiry proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition but requested the Chairman to nominate another distinguished jurist in place of respondent No.3, ensuring that the reconstituted Committee could proceed with the charges already framed against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the proceedings should not be delayed unnecessarily, and the inquiry should be completed expeditiously.