The two Congress MPs who had moved the Supreme Court against the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s order rejecting an impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, withdrew their petition on Tuesday.

The top court expressed its reluctance to go into their contention questioning the setting up of a larger Bench to hear the matter.

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice AK Sikri declared the petitions moved by the two MPs as “dismissed as withdrawn” after senior advocate and party leader Kapil Sibal, appearing for the MPs, decided not to press the pleas realising that the judges were not inclined to accept his arguments.

Sibal had sought to know who had ordered the listing of the matter before a larger bench and sought a copy of the order, saying this was necessary to enable them decide whether or not to challenge it.

“We approached the first puisne judge. But we were told that it will be heard by the five-judge Bench. We do not know who passed this order... There was no judicial order… We posed seven questions before the court,” he said.

The 45-minute hearing before the Bench, which also comprised Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and AK Goel, saw Sibal appearing for Congress MPs Partap Singh Bajwa (Punjab) and Amee Harshadray Yajnik (Gujarat). However, Attorney General K K Venugopal sought dismissal of the petitions filed by Bajwa and Yajnik, pointing out that only two of the over 60 members, who had earlier moved the impeachment notice in the Upper House of Parliament, have approached the apex court.

Venugopal said only two MPs from one party, the Congress, have moved the court when there were MPs from six other opposition parties who had moved a notice of impeachment motion before the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

The AG said “the presumption is that all others have not supported the stand taken by the Congress party to challenge the rejection of impeachment notice by Naidu”.

He also claimed that the two Congress MPs have not been authorised by rest of the MPs to file the petition in the apex court. As many as 64 Rajya Sabha MPs had signed the notice of impeachment against the CJI, which was rejected by Naidu on April 23.

Before Attorney General opened his arguments, Sibal raised a volley of questions on the setting up of the constitution bench, including who had passed the order to set up such a bench to hear the matter.

“Reference to five judges can only be made by a Judicial Order. The rules of the Supreme Court do not allow the Chief Justice of India to pass an administrative order to refer a matter to five judges on the ground that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in the case,” he claimed.

Sibal added that in the present case, no judicial order was issued. “The Petitioners, are entitled to know the authority, who, on the administrative side, passed an order to refer this matter to five distinguished judges,” he said.

Sibal added that if the authority happens to be the CJI, then the petitioners are entitled to be informed of the order and contend.

“It is a piquant and unprecedented situation where CJI is a party and other four judges may also have some role. We don’t know,” the bench said.

Sibal said only after getting a copy of the order could they decide whether or not to challenge it.

However, when the Bench showed reluctance to accept his arguments and submissions, the senior advocate decided to withdraw the petition.

“We want to protect the Dignity of the Court. We want to protect the independence of the Court. That is one statutory principle. At the same time, we want to protect and ensure that the processes of the court are not polluted, that they are pure,” Sibal told reporters later.

He also denied the BJP’s charges that the move to impeach Misra was politically motivated.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW