1995 (9) TMI 392 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Bar Council or Bar Association is entitled to pass a resolution demanding a judge's resignation.
2. The impact of such resolutions on the independence of the judiciary.
3. The constitutional permissibility of such actions by the Bar.
4. The appropriate procedure for addressing allegations of misconduct against judges.
5. The role of the Chief Justice of India in such matters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Bar Council or Bar Association is entitled to pass a resolution demanding a judge's resignation:
The petitioner argued that the acts of respondents 2 to 4, pressurizing the 1st respondent to resign, were unconstitutional and deleterious to the independence of the judiciary. The petitioner emphasized that the Constitution provides specific procedures for the removal of judges and that forced resignation is not recognized by law. The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) and the Bombay Bar Association (BBA) defended their actions, stating that their resolutions were in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the judiciary.

2. The impact of such resolutions on the independence of the judiciary:
The judgment highlighted the importance of judicial independence, stating that the judiciary must be free from any pressure, whether from the executive or other sources. It was noted that allowing the Bar to demand a judge's resignation through collective pressure could undermine the confidence and competence of judges, thereby threatening the foundation of democratic polity. The court emphasized that judicial independence is essential for the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law.

3. The constitutional permissibility of such actions by the Bar:
The court examined whether the Bar Council or Bar Association has the right to pass resolutions against a judge's conduct. It was concluded that such actions are not constitutionally permissible. The court referred to Article 121 of the Constitution, which prohibits discussion of a judge's conduct in Parliament except during impeachment proceedings. By implication, no other forum, including Bar Associations, has the authority to discuss or pass resolutions regarding a judge's conduct.

4. The appropriate procedure for addressing allegations of misconduct against judges:
The judgment outlined that the Constitution provides a specific procedure for the removal of judges under Article 124(4) and (5), which involves impeachment by Parliament. The court noted that any other form of investigation or action by external agencies, such as the CBI, is not permissible. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and suggested that allegations of misconduct should be addressed through self-regulation within the judiciary.

5. The role of the Chief Justice of India in such matters:
The court emphasized the primacy of the Chief Justice of India in addressing allegations of misconduct against judges. It was suggested that the Chief Justice of the High Court should verify the allegations and consult the Chief Justice of India. The Chief Justice of India, after being satisfied with the truth of the allegations, may take appropriate action or tender advice to the concerned judge. This procedure ensures that actions are taken without external pressure and maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Bar Council or Bar Association does not have the constitutional authority to demand a judge's resignation. Such actions undermine judicial independence and are not permissible under the Constitution. Allegations of misconduct should be addressed through self-regulation within the judiciary, with the Chief Justice of India playing a central role in ensuring appropriate action is taken. The judgment serves as a precedent for handling similar issues in the future, emphasizing the need to preserve the independence and integrity of the judiciary. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.