On a day when a motion to remove Chief Justice of India was moved in Parliament, the Supreme Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General to frame guidelines on the procedure to be followed by Parliamentarians prior to moving the removal motion under Article 124 of the Constitution.
The court was “disturbed” to note how Members of Parliament openly issued statements to the Press on the removal motion even before it was moved in the House. Suggesting that this conduct amounted to “intimidation” of judges, a petition filed by NGO “In Pursuit of Justice” urged the court to consider framing guidelines to regulate the procedure to be followed by legislators and media prior to initiation of removal motion. The Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan agreed with the petitioner’s concern. It said, “We all are very disturbed about what is happening.” The Bench sought the assistance of Attorney General KK Venugopal and posted the matter for further hearing on May 7.
The petition argued by senior advocate Meenakshi Arora said that the petitioner NGO representing the consumers of justice in this country who feel that such utterances by parliamentarians and media affects the integrity and independence of judiciary as it attempts to threaten the judges. This affects the institution of public trust that is essential for citizens to approach court in pursuit of justice, Arora added.
The petition stated, “There is no law which contemplates and permits the circulation of draft notice of motion to the Press. Any statement on matters of public interest should be first made in the House, while it is in session, before releasing them to the Press or bringing it in the public domain, leave alone a matter of such grave and serious nature as having far reaching ramifications including undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts.
Arora said that the debate on media channels on political statements prior to removal motion being filed divides people on “polarised” lines. The Bench said, “This is very unfortunate what is happening”. However, the court refused to bar the media from publishing or telecasting the subject of removal of a judge awaiting response from the A-G. It said, “The law is very clear. Even the legislature knows the law. We need to determine first whether this matter can be taken up on the judicial side for which we need assistance of the A-G.”