A discordant note has been struck in the already polarised public discourse by the movement of a motion for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Mishra by the Congress-led Opposition. The binaries were formed the moment Congress veteran Ghulam Nabi Azad led a delegation of seven parties to submit the notice of impeachment and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley dubbed it a “revenge petition” for not having got the judiciary to implicate BJP President Amit Shah in the death of CBI court Judge BH Loya. This is a moment when integrity of democratic institutions is being stretched to its limits with every Constitutional method, be it the movement of a no-confidence motion against the government in the Lok Sabha or different litigations in the apex court. The circumstances and substance of the motion for impeaching the Chief Justice of India do not inspire confidence that this too is not a method to merely score political points rather than cleansing and ensuring accountability in the highest court of the land.

To begin with, moving the motion a day after a bench headed by Chief Justice Mishra rejected pleas for probing the death of Judge Loya only serves to validate Jaitley’s argument that the Opposition, in particular the Congress, is attacking the top-most judge in the country for not delivering a verdict against the ruling party. At least one top jurist, former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, has publicly chastised the Congress for not being able to digest an unfavourable judgement. While the Congress has argued that the process was initiated several months in advance, the timing is significant. It does not help that the Opposition’s notice for impeachment does not bear the signatures of one of the most credible parliamentarians – former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

More than the circumstance, it is the substance of the motion that leaves much to be desired. Unlike any other precedents for moving impeachment, the rigour in establishing “proven misconduct” is missing in the Opposition’s notice. The charge of forgery, for instance, which relates to CJI having ante-dated an administrative order dated November 6, 2017, is being questioned for its authenticity. Before the Opposition makes a charge of forgery against the CJI, was due diligence done in bringing it about? Does the Opposition have cogent evidence to prove this charge? If the Opposition is in possession of evidence linking the CJI directly to payment of illegal gratification, the submission of the notice for impeachment would have been the opportune moment to present it. Impeachment is serious business and has to be well thought out and backed by a solid case. The present case fails on both counts.

comment COMMENT NOW