1992 (8) TMI 277 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the petitioner has locus to maintain the writ petition? Held that - for the fact that petitioner Raj Kanwar after the conclusion of the hearing in which he was permitted to file written submissions which we have taken into account, chose to adopt the extraordinary course of an application to the Chief Justice of India to make the wholly unjustified grievance that he was not orally heard. As an advocate he should have known that such an application is untenable apart from being misconceived. He should have appreciated that public interest was served better by early conclusion of the hearing rather than its prolongation to enable every individual, who so desired, to address us orally. We are also of the opinion that in a matter of this kind, it was not only unnecessary but also inappropriate to permit the hearing being converted into a debate for participation of every individual in the name of public interest. We do not think that the persistence of Raj Kanwar is in public interest. The basis of the right claimed by the petitioner, Raj Kanwar, has to be found in some principle to amount to the right of the kind he claims. There is no special injury to him alleged and, therefore, the right he claims is no better than that available to every other advocate in the country. If the mere membership of the Bar can provide the foundation for the right which Raj Kanwar asserts to maintain a separate petition then on principle every advocate in the country would be entitled to file a separate petition, and as he claims also entitled to be heard orally even though it may only be at best repetition of the same arguments which Shri Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate advanced at length. Since it cannot be visualized that every Advocate as an individual can claim such a right in public interest, it cannot be doubted that the claim made by petitioner, Raj Kanwar to this effect and his insistence on being orally heard when he had nothing additional to contribute, as is evident from his petition and the written arguments, is clearly misconceived. It is necessary that this tendency is curbed in public interest to avoid wastage of courts time and abuse of its process. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the notice of motion and the procedure adopted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha.
2. Alleged procedural illegalities by the Inquiry Committee.
3. Maintainability of the writ petitions without impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami.
4. Reconsideration of the decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India.
5. Public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioners.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Notice of Motion and Procedure Adopted by the Speaker:
The petitioner Raj Kanwar alleged that the notice of motion by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha and its admission by the then Speaker were unconstitutional, violating Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The court held that the Speaker, as a high constitutional functionary, acted within his discretion and with due consideration of available materials. The court emphasized that the Speaker's decision to admit the motion did not require a preliminary investigation or consultation with the Chief Justice of India. The Speaker's action was deemed a constitutional function, not subject to judicial review for lack of reasons or consultation.

2. Alleged Procedural Illegalities by the Inquiry Committee:
Petitioner M. Krishna Swami alleged procedural illegalities by the Inquiry Committee that prejudiced Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, rendering the inquiry invalid. The court noted that the Inquiry Committee's proceedings are statutory and subject to judicial review. However, it found no merit in the allegations of procedural illegalities, stating that the Committee's actions were consistent with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and the principles of natural justice. The court held that the Committee had the discretion to regulate its own procedure, and the participation of third parties like George Fernandez and Jaswant Singh was within its discretion.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions Without Impleading Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami:
The court concluded that both writ petitions must be dismissed on the preliminary ground of non-maintainability, as Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami was not impleaded as a party. The court emphasized that the reliefs claimed were for the benefit of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, and he should have been a party to the petitions. The court found no cogent reason to examine the merits of the points raised in the absence of the learned Judge, who had not chosen to raise the same issues himself.

4. Reconsideration of the Decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India:
The petitioners sought reconsideration of the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability. The court held that the plea for reconsideration was not tenable at the instance of the petitioners, who were not parties to the earlier decision. The court reiterated the principles for reconsideration of a decision, emphasizing that compelling reasons for public good must exist. The court found no such compelling reasons in this case and declined to reopen the questions concluded by the earlier decision.

5. Public Interest Litigation and Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
The court addressed the locus standi of the petitioners, particularly Raj Kanwar, who was described as a "busy body" with no ostensible public purpose. The court reiterated the principles from S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, emphasizing that public interest litigation must be bona fide and not for personal gain or political motivation. The court found that Raj Kanwar's persistence in claiming to be heard orally was not in public interest and was misconceived. The court emphasized that the right to maintain a petition in public interest must be based on genuine interest and sufficient connection to the subject matter.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed both writ petitions on the preliminary ground of non-maintainability due to the absence of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami as a party. The court declined to reconsider the earlier decision in Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability and found no merit in the allegations of procedural illegalities by the Inquiry Committee. The court also emphasized the importance of bona fide public interest litigation and the limitations on locus standi. The decision reinforces the principles of judicial independence, procedural fairness, and the proper exercise of constitutional functions by high authorities like the Speaker of Lok Sabha.

← Previous Next →