 ended in a damp squib with the lead contending lawyer Kapil Sibal withdrawing the petition.){kind=link}
The Supreme Court constitution bench hearing on Vice President Venkaiah Naidu’s rejection of the Congress-led impeachment motion against Chief Justice Dipak Misra on Tuesday (May 8) ended in a damp squib with the lead contending lawyer Kapil Sibal withdrawing the petition.
The petition will be now categorized as dismissed as withdrawn.
As the submissions began at court No. 6, the lead counsel mentioned before the constitutional bench, comprising Justices A K Sikri, S A Bobde, Justice N V Ramana, Justice Arun Mishra and Adarsh Kumar Goel that the lawyer representing the CJI impeachment case was once a minister.
At that senior advocate Kapil Sibal said: “If I cannot address the court, it’s ok. But I am challenging the chairman’s (Rajya Sabha) order.
There are two principles. They are: 1. uphold the dignity of the court; 2. Process of the law must be updated. There must be an appearance and no element of suspicion; this is the duty of the court as well as the duty of the lawyers too.
What is to be decided by the court is that how to maintain a balance between the fact that dignity and independence of the court is maintained and the process of the judiciary is updated. We don’t doubt that the CJI is the master of the roster. We are not challenging the master of the roster; that power resides in the office of the Chief Justice.
He said (without mentioning name) that one counsel mentioned in court No. 1 (the chief justice’s court) about impeachment “rather he tried to mention about it but he was not allowed to complete his mentioning.”
Is the master of the roster and his constitutional powers is likely to execute his powers at the disposal of the his whims and fancies? If so, In that case, what should we do?
If you say that this cannot be challenged, then in the history of law, it shall be the only exception under the rule of law in this country that the orders of the master of the roster cannot be challenged, submits Sibal
Matter has been before the constitutional bench on the basis of an administrative order, says Sibal.
(To be updated)
—India Legal Bureau