Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan on Tuesday moved an RTI application in the Supreme Court Additional Registrar office to find out if the CJI impeachment case was referred to a five-judge Constitution bench by way of administrative order and who passed it.
The move came after the bench hearing the plea refused to answer the question, and senior counsel Kapil Sibal subsequently withdrew a petition moved by two Congress MPs against Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu's dismissal of a notice to impeach Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.
"Was writ petition Pratap Singh Bajwa and Another versus Chairman Rajya Sabha and Another listed on May 8 before a Constitution bench by way of an administrative order? If yes, who has passed the above mentioned order," Bhushan asked in his application seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Besides a copy of the order, Bhushan also said that he be allowed to "inspect the concerned file along with any file noting concerning the said order".
On April 20, members from seven opposition parties led by the Congress submitted a notice to Chairman Naidu to initiate impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Misra on five counts of "misbehaviour" -- a notice rejected by Naidu.
On Monday, Congress MPs Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Yajnik filed a petition alleging that Naidu's decision was politically motivated.
"It was mentioned before the court that since the case deals directly with the CJI on impeachment and therefore the CJI could not have heard the mentioning or exercise any power as the master of the roster or for listing the case," Bhushan told the media.
"But suddenly last night, the registry announced that the case has been listed before a Constitution bench in Court 6. It has never happened before that a matter/petition is listed before a Constitution bench even without a judicial order and we need to know if the CJI has passed this order."
Bhushan said every administrative order of any authority, even if it is of the CJI, is capable of being challenged on the judicial side.
"Unfortunately, the bench said they would not like to go into this matter and they would not like to provide a copy of the order," the senior lawyer said.
--IANS
mak-nks/him/mr
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
