The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on Sikkim high court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s petition questioning the impeachment inquiry committee’s decision to “broaden” the ambit of investigation beyond the impeachment motion notice against him.
After a marathon hearing stretching several days on several important questions relating to the role of judges, their appointment and removal procedures as laid down in the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act, a bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad reserved the judgment.
Two senior advocates — B.P. Patil and Amarendra Sharan — appearing for Justice Dinakaran, took serious objection to Tuesday’s intervention by government law officer P.P. Malhotra in the case and defending the inquiry panel’s order to investigate the matter further.
Mr Sharan said, “Appearance of Union of India was uncalled for. The law is codified and it does not contemplate any role for the Union of India in the matter. It (law) cannot be altered. A new concept cannot be introduced.”
While explaining that the impeachment motion was an issue between Parliament and the judge under probe, Mr Sharan asked where was the need for the Centre to intervene when the matter was still before the inquiry committee.
Additional solicitor-general P.P. Malhotra on Tuesday had justified the order of the three-member inquiry committee, headed by Supreme Court Justice Aftab Alam, framing 14 charges against Justice Dinakaran while the impeachment motion notice issued to him contained only 12 charges.
Mr Malhotra had argued that some charges in the motion could be “vague”.