New Delhi, April 29 (IANS) The Supreme Court Friday stayed an enquiry against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran, who is facing impeachment on charges of misconduct, corruption and land-grabbing.
An apex court bench of Justice H.S. Bedi and Justice C.K. Prasad issued notice on the petition filed by Dinakaran and gave the three-member Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC), including senior counsel P.P. Rao, two weeks’ time to reply to the petition.
The JIC was set up by Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari after a motion seeking the initiation of impeachment proceedings and removal of Dinakaran was moved Dec 14, 2009.
Apart from Rao, the panel includes Justice Aftab Alam of the apex court and Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court J.S. Khehar.
Dinakaran has sought the declaration of JIC proceedings held April 24 as ‘null and void’. The JIC by its said decision rejected Dinakaran’s plea seeking the withdrawal of Rao from the panel.
Dinakaran contended that Rao signed a memorandum addressed to the then chief justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan opposing his elevation as a judge of the Supreme Court and hence Rao’s presence in the JIC would prejudice his case.
The court said that Rao’s presence in the JIC does not make the bias absolute.
Senior counsel Amarendra Saran, appearing for Dinakaran, said that even the apprehension of bias was enough to hold up the enquiry proceedings. The court said it was for this reason alone that it was issuing the notice.
The court has set the hearing for the vacation bench.
While issuing the notice seeking the recusal of Rao from the JIC, the court also tagged another plea by Dinakaran challenging the framing of charges against him.
Initially the court wanted to issue notice returnable in one week without staying the proceedings. When Saran objected to it, the court asked him what would happen in a week.
Saran told the court that the hearing was going on day-to-day basis and in a week’s time they will examine the witnesses.
Dinakaran in his petition asked ‘whether a person (Rao) who has complained against the conduct of a judge (Dinakaran) can investigate into the allegations seeking the removal of the judge on the grounds of ‘proven misbehaviour’ envisaged under Article 124(4) of the constitution of India’.
He said the allegations made by the third respondent (Rao) forms the part of the charges framed against him and it was the truth or otherwise of these charges that the committee consisting the third respondent (Rao) has to judge, Dinakaran said.
Dinakaran contended that ‘it is a settled law that no complainant or prosecutor can be a judge of his own cause’.
He said that he was entitled to ‘fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal or committee and that no statutory mandate can override the constitutional rights of the petitioner’.
He said that committee could not have insisted on the continuation of Rao on the JIC after he himself offered to recuse from it.
Dinakaran’s plea before the inquiry committee asking Rao to withdraw from the panel was rejected by it April 24.
Going into the nature of the charges framed against him, Dinakaran contended that the ‘framing of charges and any investigation into the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the committee and all further proceedings pursuant to such charges needs to be dropped forthwith’.
