New Delhi, May 31 (IANS) The central government Tuesday told the Supreme Court that the Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC) probing charges of misconduct against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran was within its rights to carry out preliminary inquiries before the framing of charges against him.
Chief Justice Dinakaran earlier this week questioned the scope of inquiry by the Rajya Sabha-appointed JIC which is looking into allegations of corruption, land grabbing, possession of disproportionate assets and misconduct against him.
The apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice C.K. Prasad was told by the government that the investigation under the Judges (Inquiry) Act pre-supposed collection of material to find out whether the charges against Chief Justice Dinakaran contained in the notice of motion seeking his removal were factually correct or not.
Notice of motion seeking the removal of Chief Justice Dinakran was moved by 75 members of the Rajya Sabha.
On Dec 15, 2009, Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari set up a JIC to probe the charges against. Headed by apex court’s Justice Aftab Alam, the JIC includes Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and senior counsel P.P. Rao.
Appearing for the government, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) P.P. Malhotra said that the investigation under Section 3 of the act provided for probe into the grounds (as detailed in the notice of motion) so that the JIC could frame ‘definite’ charges against the judge faced with the prospects of removal.
Malhotra said that it was necessary because the information at the stage of moving the notice of motion may be vague.
Justifying the preliminary investigation prior to the framing of the charges, Malhotra said: ‘It is a serious matter and you are going into the conduct of a judge and definite charges can only be framed after collecting further material and verifying the evidence.’
The ASG said that ‘collecting evidence is a part of investigation. Once definite charges are framed and if any one is aggrieved with them, then the JIC has the power to amend them’.
Appearing for the JIC, senior counsel U.U. Lalit justified the holding of the preliminary inquiry, modification and improvement of charges by the JIC framed in the notice of motion. He told the court that notice of motion mentioned the charges but did not give sufficient details to back them.
‘According to me there is nothing in the framing of charge which is beyond the scope of the JIC,’ Lalit told the court. He told the court that there were 11 charges in the notice of motion but the JIC framed 14 charges.
‘It was essential for the JIC to carry out preliminary inquiry to satisfy itself of the case (grounds) before framing the charges,’ he said.
‘It was essential to arm the committee (JIC) to frame definite charges against the judge under probe,’ Lalit told the court.
The preliminary inquiry not only helped in farming of pin-pointed charges but even in deleting the ones which were not supported by evidence, he said.
He said that in the case of Chief Justice Dinakaran two charges involving huge spending to the tune of crores of rupees in his daughter’s marriage and buying of houses from Tamil Nadu housing boards were dropped for want of evidence.
The hearing will continue Wednesday.
