HC declines to examine Judges (Inquiry) Act

Chandigarh, Nov 14 (UNI) Punjab and Haryana High Court today declined to examine the constitutionality of the provisions for impeachment of Judges and the Judges (inquiry) Act, 1968 on grounds of jurisdiction.

The court's Division Bench of the acting Chief Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar and Justice Surinder Singh Saron ordered this after hearing arguments on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition of advocate H C Arora wherein he had challenged the constitutional validity of Article 124 (4), 124 (5), 217 (1) of the Constitution and the provisions of 'Judges (Inquiry) Act 1968'.

It was contended with the passage of time, since the framing of the Constitution, the impeachment provisions contained in Article 124 have become less than fair as parliamentary proceedings have lost their sanctity with a large number of MPs facing criminal proceedings. Such MPs cannot be part of any fair trial in the form of impeachment proceedings against the judges of the High Court or the Apex Court.

He also pleaded with the enactment of Anti-Defection Act and whip system prevalent in Parliament, MPs cannot be expected to vote on a motion of impeachment with ''free conscience''. The petitioner was of the view MPs who move the impeachment motion against a judge, must not be permitted to vote on such impeachment motion because of their apparent bias.

Mr Arora said he had sent a representation to the Prime Minister with copies to other ministers for deleting the existing provisions for impeachment of judges but news reports indicated the government intended to amend the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 for creating a system for punishing errant judges while deciding to retain the existing provisions of impeachment under the Constitution.

He also submitted that under Article 235 of the Constitution, the district level judiciary was immune to interference from the legislature or the executive since the same was under exclusive control of the High Court, and for that reason alone, the judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court deserved similar immunity from interference by the Parliament.

While declining to examine the issues, the bench observed the proper forum for raising the matter was Parliament and it was for the electorate to decide which type of MPs were to be elected to Parliament.

UNI XC PS LS VV1858