Thaindian News

New Delhi, May 16 (IANS) The Supreme Court Monday issued notice to the Judges Inquiry Committee (JIC) on a petition by Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran saying that the charges framed against him were beyond the scope of the notice of the motion seeking his impeachment for alleged misconduct involving corruption and land grabbing.

A bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice C.K. Prasad issued the notice after senior counsel Amarendra Saran told the court that the chargesheet issued to Dinakaran has charges that were not in the notice of the motion.

Dinakaran has challenged the JIC on two grounds: that the presence of senior counsel P.P. Rao was prejudicial to the holding of a free and fair inquiry against him and that the inquiry committee has gone beyond its mandate in framing the charges against him.

Dinakaran is facing charges of misconduct and the motion seeking the initiation of impeachment proceedings and his removal was moved Dec 14, 2009. Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari had set up the JIC in view of the motion against Dinakaran.

It was alleged that he possesses assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and has encroached upon public land earmarked for the SC/ST and the weaker sections in Kaverirajapuram in Tiruvallur district of Tamil Nadu. Justice Dinakaran has denied the charges.

The JIC that comprises of apex court judge Justice Aftab Alam, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and senior counsel P.P. Rao has issued 16 point charge-sheet, which Dinakaran has contended was beyond the ambit of its scope.

The court was told that Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the Judges Inquiry Act says that the ambit of the Judges Inquiry Committee shall be confined to the grounds stated in the notice of motion (for impeachment) and the material made available in the notice supporting the allegations.

It was contended on behalf of Dinakaran that if the JIC had gone strictly according to the provisions of Judges Inquiry Act then it could have framed a few charges only.

Mainly focusing on the presence of senior counsel P.P.Rao, the senior counsel Amarendra Saran told the court said that Rao had signed the memorandum addressed to the then Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan opposing Justice Dinakaran’s elevation as judge of the apex court.

Dinakaran, when he was chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, was recommended for elevation as a judge of the apex court in 2009 by the apex court collegium.

Saran also told the court that the seminar organised by the Bar Association of India in November 2009, adopted a resolution that was drafted by Rao which had sought an inquiry into the allegation against Dinakaran.

The court was also told that the April 9, 2011, proceedings of the JIC, wherein Dinakaran’s plea seeking adjournment of the proceedings was rejected, was void as the sitting lacked quorum.

The court was told that the rules under the Judges Inquiry Act say that in the absence of quorum, no proceedings of the committee could be held. The presence of two out of three members is necessary to satisfy the requirement of the quorum, the petition said.

In the April 9, 2011 meeting, the petition said that Justice Alam alone was present. “The order dated April 9, 2011 indicates that other members were consulted over phone and the copy of the order dictated in the open was circulated to other members and finalised after consultation…”, the petition read.

Dinakaran had sought the adjournment of the proceedings on the grounds that he has yet to receive a reply from the Rajya Sabha chairman to his application and petition dated April 7/8, 2011 seeking details of the proceedings leading to the setting up of the JIC.

The matter will come up for further hearing on May 18.