A day after his decision to not admit the opposition parties’ notice for an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu on Tuesday said that his decision was “timely, not hasty”, it had come after more than a month of due diligence, and was in strict conformity with provisions of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. The Rajya Sabha chairman is believed to have told a group of Supreme Court lawyers who called on him today that even if the decision was within three days of the actual submission of the notice, it has been in the media for over a month that there was a move to bring an impeachment motion. “(And) I have since been working on the provisions, procedures and precedents in the matter, given the serious nature of the proposal and its implications, and the imperative need for a timely decision,” he said. While the lawyers met Naidu to “compliment” him on his decision to reject the notice, and to “discuss the implications”, Naidu is said to have told them, “I don’t think it warrants compliments. I only did what was expected of me, and in the manner the chairman of Rajya Sabha was expected to conduct in such matters. Some Hon’ble Members of the House had a point of view and the right to express it, while I had a responsibility cast on me.” “I have done my job and am satisfied with it,” he said. Read | CJI impeachment motion rejected: Seeking judicial review a blunder, says Arun Jaitley He said: “The law (Section 3; Judges Inquiry Act, 1968) clearly required the chairman of Rajya Sabha to look for prima facie (ground).for either admitting the notice or refusing to do so. A clear responsibility was cast on the chairman, and it would not be correct to interpret the role of chairman as that of mere post office. Chairman is required to act as a constitutional functionary, which is a substantial responsibility”. READ | Oppn calls decision illegal, Congress says MPs to challenge order in SC Naidu also referred to the adverse consequences of constitutional functionaries not acting in time, as in the case of defections in some states, resulting in subversion of the spirit of the law. According to a source who was present in the meeting, the lawyers, while congratulating him, told Naidu that this is not the first case of such a notice being rejected by a presiding officer, as has been claimed by some. They referred to a similar notice against Supreme Court Judge J C Shah that was rejected by the then Lok Sabha Speaker G S Dhillon. Justice Shah later became the CJI. The lawyers also recalled that a notice for removal of Justice P D Dinakaran was admitted within three days. The CJI is the highest judicial functionary of the country and any issue in public domain concerning him “requires to be resolved at the earliest (by) following prescribed procedures to prevent the atmosphere from being further vitiated”, Naidu is believed to have told the visiting lawyers.
