Impeachment Motion Against CJI Dipak Misra: Congress to Move Supreme Court Against Venkaiah Naidu’s Order

Earlier today, Venkaiah Naidu rejected the Congress-led opposition’s notice for the impeachment of justice Dipak Misra on the ground that there was lack of "credible and verifiable" information.

New Delhi, Apr 23: The Congress party on Monday said it will go to the Supreme Court against the order of Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu rejecting an impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.

“We’ll certainly file a petition (in Supreme Court) against this,” senior Congress leader and lawyer Kapil Sibal said. “We would want the CJI to not take any decision with respect to it, be it the listing or anything else. We’ll accept whatever the Supreme Court decides,” Sibal added.

Earlier today, Venkaiah Naidu rejected the Congress-led opposition’s notice for the impeachment of justice Dipak Misra on the ground that there was lack of “credible and verifiable” information on charges of “misbehaviour” which undermined judiciary’s independence.

“Having considered the material contained in the notice of motion and reflected upon the inputs received in my interaction with legal luminaries and constitutional experts, I am of the firm opinion that the notice of the motion does not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly, I refuse to admit notice of motion,” Naidu said.

On April 20, 64 members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a motion to Naidu alleging five charges of “misbehaviour” against the CJI including conspiracy to pay illegal gratification in a case relating to an educational trust and the alleged violation of code of conduct for judges by presiding over every bench that heard the case and passed orders.

“I have also gone through the comments made by former Attorney General, constitutional experts and editors of prominent newspapers which are unequivocal and nearly unanimous that the present notice of motion before me is not a fir case for removal of judges,” Naidu said in his order.

The Chairman held that since the notice was signed by 64 members, it met the requirement of Section 3(1)(b) of the Judges Inquiry Act for moving a motion.