RS rules prohibit MPs' public statements on judge removal: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday said the Rajya Sabha rules prohibited Members of Parliament from making public statements on the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court or a high court without any notice of impeachment in Parliament.

The court was hearing a plea seeking to restrain MPs from making public statements on the removal of a judge without any prior notice in Parliament.

A bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan said there was no "urgency" in the mater and posted the hearing for the third week of July.

The plea by NGO In Pursuit of Justice sought directions to lay down guidelines to regulate the procedure to be followed by MPs desirous of initiating the process for the removal of a Judge of higher judiciary prior to initiating an impeachment motion.

Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the NGO, said the plea was concerned with the "times to come" and required consideration by the court.

To this, the bench said: "Why do you feel that such a time will come again and again."

The plea was filed against the backdrop of discussion on impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

In an unprecedented move, 64 Rajya Sabha members from seven political parties led by the Congress submitted an impeachment motion in April for the removal of Chief Justice Misra on five grounds of "misbehaviour".

Rajya Sabha Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu had rejected the motion.

Earlier, the bench dubbed as "unfortunate" the public statements by politicians on the issue of the impeachment of members of the higher judiciary.

Advocate Meenakshi Arora told the apex court earlier that politicians were making all kinds of public statements on the removal of a Judge without any motion to this effect before Parliament.

She had averred that there can be no discussion and the issue of impeachment cannot be made public till a certain point.

Arora had also sought a gag order on the media on the impeachment process against the CJI in Parliament which the bench had declined.

--IANS

gt/him/vm