By Rana Ajit, IANS
New Delhi : A parliamentary panel is to recommend changes in a draft bill that it says allows errant high court or Supreme Court judges to mount an elaborate challenge on presidential orders dismissing them, government sources said.
Instead, the panel wants an impeached judge to be entitled to only a brief Supreme Court review of their dismissal order, said a senior law ministry official privy to the proceedings of the parliamentary panel on the law and justice ministry, which last met June 25.
The panel, which examined the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2006, is to recommend that the government modify Section 30 which entitles an impeached judge to go in an appeal before the Supreme Court and seek a detailed examination of the president's order.
The bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha Dec 19, 2006, seeks to establish an institutional mechanism to probe charges, such as corruption and inefficiency, brought against Supreme or high court judges. It recommends the establishment of a body – to be known as the National Judicial Council (NJC) – comprising the chief justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court or high court.
Section 30 of the bill, in its present form, reads: "A judge aggrieved by an order of removal passed by the President or the NJC … may prefer an appeal in the Supreme Court." The panel wants the word 'appeal' to be replaced by 'review'.
The panel zeroed in on Section 30 after law ministry officials explained the subtle differences between the legal processes of review and appeal. The panel was told that the process of appeal entails a close and detailed judicial examination of the executive's decision – both on the grounds of facts and the law.
On the other hand, a judicial review is limited to a brief examination of a decision only on the grounds of law and not fact, the panel was told.
The panel was told that as the President's decision to dismiss a judge under the Judges Enquiry Bill would be based on the recommendation made by the Chief Justice of India and other senior-most judges, it would be illogical to subject the President's decision to an elaborate examination.
It was also pointed out to the panel that the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is one of the basic features of the Constitution – as held by the Apex court in the Kesavananda Bharati case, in which executive dictates suspending certain fundamental rights during the Emergency had been challenged.
Eminent jurist and former law minister Ram Jethmalani, expressing his opposition to the bill, had told IANS: "Section 30 is the most foolish provision of the bill."
The panel has finished its examination of the bill and is presently drafting its recommendations, hoping to table them in the upcoming monsoon session of parliament.