No politics behind impeachment plea, want to maintain dignity of court: Cong

The Congress today said there was no politics behind the petition challenging the rejection of the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the sole purpose was to ensure independence of the judiciary and maintain dignity of the court.

There was nothing personal against anyone in the court, Congress leader Kapil Sibal said while pitching for transparency in the judicial process and demanding the order under which the five-judge constitution bench was constituted to hear the petition from the party's MPs Partap Singh Bajwa and Amee Yajnik.

The petition challenging Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu's order rejecting the impeachment notice was to ensure that the rule of law was followed in courts and that the processes of law were "pure", Sibal told reporters at the AICC headquarters here.

Bajwa and Yajnik, represented by Sibal in the Supreme Court, withdrew their plea earlier in the day.

During the hearing, Sibal raised questions on the setting up of the constitution bench, including who passed the order for setting up the five-judge bench to hear the matter. He also sought of a copy of the order on setting up of the bench.

"This is not a political issue. There is no politics behind this....There is no personal interest...

"We want to protect the dignity of the court. We want to protect the independence of the court. That is one statutory principle. At the same time, we want to protect and ensure that the processes of the court are not polluted, that they are pure," Sibal said at a press conference soon after the petition was withdrawn.

Sibal told journalists that the petitioners only wanted the court to let them know under whose order the bench was constituted.

"... we were informed last evening that our petition will be heard by five judges. Who gave these orders? What were the orders?" Sibal asked.

There was no order in the country that cannot be challenged and the petitioners, the two Congress MPs, wanted that the order be shown to them as administrative orders passed by the CJI were also challengeable, he said.

"We are ready to argue. Before we argue that, we want to know who passed this order. This is the first time in the history of the country that on the administrative side, somebody has passed the order to refer the matter to five judges. Now we are entitled to know what is wrong in giving us the order. That is what we are asking," he said.

"This is not a document covered under the Official Secrets Act. We can only argue on the merits of the case if we receive a copy of the order, because there is no order that cannot be challenged under the Constitution," he said.

The matter, Sibal said, was to be heard by Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most after the CJI, who has asked them to 'come back tomorrow'.

The former law minister also issued a statement, listing his arguments made before the Supreme Court.

According to the statement, the reference to five judges can only be made by a judicial order.

The rules of the Supreme Court do not allow the CJI to pass an administrative order to refer a matter to five judges "on the ground that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution arises in the case", it said.

In the present case, there is no judicial order formulating the substantial question of law involving the interpretation of the Constitution which is required to be adjudicated upon by a Constitution Bench, the statement said.

"It is assumed, since the petitioners are not privy to any such order, that the concerned authority took the decision that the issues raised in the petition are required to be adjudicated upon by five distinguished judges after due application of mind on issues raised in the petition," it said.

If the authority happens to be the CJI against whom a motion of removal on the basis of certain articles of charge was filed and dismissed by the chairman in exercise of powers under 3 (1) (b) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, then the petitioners are entitled to be informed of the order and contend that a copy of the order be furnished to the petitioners before any proceedings take place, it added.