Vice President Venkaiah Naidu consulted several experts before rejected the impeachment notice against the CJI.New Delhi: Vice President Venkaiah Naidu cited various reasons for blocking a move by the opposition parties, led by the Congress to impeach Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. One of the points raised by Mr Naidu as the Rajya Sabha Chiarman is the lack of substantial merit in the impeachment notice.
Venkaiah Naidu said in his 10-page order “We cannot allow any of our pillars of governance to be weakened by any thought, word or action.” Sources said Mr Naidu consulted several top legal and constitutional experts, before he took the decision. Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had last Friday moved a notice before him for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India on five grounds of “misbehaviour”.
1″The phrases used by the Hon’ble Members of Parliament themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainly does not constitute proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, which is required to make out a case of ‘proved misbehaviour’.”
2“The allegations emerging from the present case have a serious tendency of undermining the independence of the judiciary which is the basic tenet of the Constitution of India. Considering the totality of facts, I am of the firm opinion that it is neither legal nor desirable or proper to admit the Notice of Motion on any of one of these grounds.”
3″When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working, the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.”
4″If such confidence is shaken or broken, the confidence of the common man in the institution of judiciary and democratic set-up is likely to be eroded, which, if not checked, is sure to be disastrous for the society.”
5″The Hon’ble Members of Parliament who have presented the petition are unsure of their own case. Page 1 of the petition uses phrases such as ‘the facts and circumstances relating to the Prasad Education Trust case show prima facie evidence suggesting that the Chief Justice of India ‘may have been’ involved in a conspiracy of paying illegal gratification …. ‘ The motion further states with regard to ‘the Chief Justice of India that ‘he too was likely’ to fall within the scope of investigation.”
6″Conversations between third parties with dubious credentials, which have been extensively relied upon, cannot themselves constitute any material evidence against the holder of the office of the Chief Justice of India.”
7″In the absence of credible and verifiable information placed before me which gives an indication of ‘misbehaviour’ or ‘incapacity’, it would be an inappropriate and irresponsible act to accept statements which have little empirical basis.”
8″We cannot allow any of our pillars of governance to be weakened by any thought, word or action.”
9″On a careful analysis and reflection, I find that there is virtually no concrete verifiable imputation.”
10″I am of the firm opinion that the Notice of Motion does not deserve to be admitted.”