Justice P.D. Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee & Ors

2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The notice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly committed by the petitioner and was accompanied by an explanatory note and documents in support of the allegations. After the motion was admitted, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (hereinafter referred to as, "the Chairman") constituted a Committee comprising Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, the then Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and respondent No.3.

3. Immediately after issue of notification dated 15.1.2010 under Section 3(2) of the Act, the newspapers carried reports suggesting that there was an objection to the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee on the ground that he had given legal opinion to the petitioner in December, 2009. On reading the newspaper reports, respondent No.3 sent letter dated 19.1.2010 to the Chairman with the request that he may be relieved from the Committee. Paragraph 2 of that letter reads as under: 3

5. On being instructed by the Chairman, the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha forwarded a copy of the aforesaid letter to respondent No.3. In 4 his response dated 27.1.2010, respondent No.3 detailed the background in which the petitioner had met him on 6.12.2009 and what transpired between them. The relevant paragraphs of that letter read as under:

6. On 12.5.2010, the petitioner suo moto sent a letter to the Vice- President of India and Chairman, Rajya Sabha stating therein that through print and electronic media he had come to know about constitution of the Committee under Section 3(2) of the Act. The petitioner claimed that the allegations levelled against him were false and baseless. He expressed anguish on being prevented from performing his judicial work and prayed that the inquiry initiated against him may be completed expeditiously and his grievance be redressed at the earliest. For the sake of reference, letter dated 12.5.2010 is reproduced below:

5. It appears that Hon'ble Rajya Sabha Members have been misled by the reports of the District Collector, Thiruvallur, State of Tamil Nadu dated 8th, 10th and 15th October, 2009 stating that myself and my wife have encroached 199.53 acres of lands at Kaverirajapuram, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, State of Tamil Nadu. As the said reports of the District Collector were specifically denied by me as baseless, the matter was referred to a Committee under the Chairmanship of Major General (Dr.) Siva Kumar, Survey of India, Department of Science and Technology, who, ultimately on 15th February, 2010, produced a survey map to my wife, Dr. K.M. Vinodhini Dinakaran, holding that there is no encroachment of any government/public lands either by me or by my wife.

12. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the Committee (respondent No.3 did not take part in the proceedings) passed detailed order dated 24.4.2011, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

The objection is raised for the first time only after a notice along with the charges and the list of witnesses and documents in support of the charges were served upon the Judge.

28. In Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex Parte McCarthy (1924) 1 KB 256, Lord Hewart, CJ., evolved the rule that justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The facts of that case were that on August 21, 1923, a collision took place between a motor cycle driven by the applicant and a motor cycle and side-car driven by one Whitworth, and it was alleged that the latter and his wife sustained injuries in the collision. In respect of those injuries Messrs Langham, Son & Douglas, solicitors, Hastings, by a letter dated August 28, 1923, made a claim on behalf of Whitworth against the applicant for damages, and the police, after making inquiries into the circumstances of the collision, applied for and obtained a summon against the applicant for driving his motor cycle in a manner dangerous to the public. At the hearing of that summon on September 22, 1923, the applicant's solicitor, who stated in his affidavit that he had no knowledge of the officials of the court, inquired whether Mr. F.G. 41 Langham, the clerk to the justices and a member of the said firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, was then sitting as clerk, and was informed that he was not, but had appointed a deputy for that day. The case was then heard, and at the conclusion of the evidence the justices retired to consider their decision, the deputy clerk retiring with them. When the justices returned into court they intimated that they had decided to convict the applicant, and they imposed a fine of 10 lakh and costs. Thereupon, the applicant's solicitor brought to the notice of the justices the fact, of which he said he had only become aware when the justices retired, that the deputy clerk was a brother of Mr. F.G. Langham, and was himself a partner in the firm of Langham, Son & Douglas, and so was interested as solicitor for Whitworth in the civil proceedings arising out of the collision in respect of which they had convicted the applicant. The solicitor in his affidavit stated that had he known the above facts he would have taken the objection before the case began. This rule was thereafter obtained on the ground that it was irregular for the deputy clerk in the circumstances to retire with the justices when considering their decision. The King's Bench quashed the conviction on the ground of bias. Lord Hewart C.J., posed the following question:

Although AICL, as a charity, cannot campaign to change the law, it is concerned by other means to procure the abolition of these crimes against humanity. In my opinion, therefore, AICL plainly had a non-pecuniary interest, to establish that Senator Pinochet was not immune.

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

51. In conclusion, we hold that belated raising of objection against inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee under Section 3(2) appears to be a calculated move on the petitioner's part. He is an intelligent person and knows that in terms of Rule 9(2)(c) of the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969, the Presiding Officer of the Committee is required to forward the report to the 77 Chairman within a period of three months from the date the charges framed under Section 3(3) of the Act were served upon him. Therefore, he wants to adopt every possible tactic to delay the submission of report which may in all probability compel the Committee to make a request to the Chairman to extend the time in terms of proviso to Rule 9(2)(c). This Court or, for that reason, no Court can render assistance to the petitioner in a petition filed with the sole object of delaying finalisation of the inquiry.

53. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.