THE TWO MEN WHO DROVE THE CJI REMOVAL MOTION

‘If a challenge is filed, CJI cannot hear it himself’

In my view, the Vice President’s decision to reject the removal motion is the correct decision. A public perception set in after the four judges held a press conference in January that they supported the impeachment. But that is not true. That conference had nothing to with impeachment.

I feel this impression should be removed or else the public will always suspect that they (four judges) were in favour of the impeachment.

The point here is that judges come and go. However, it’s the Supreme Court, the final interpreter of justice, which needs to be preserved.

The Vice President has the statutory power to reject or accept the petition under the law.

He needs to decide on the maintainability of the petition. What he has done is correct because there is no credible allegation against the chief Justice.

Whoever wants to challenge (the Vice President’s decision) can do so. The law allows them to do so.

In such a situation he (CJI) cannot hear the case himself. He has to mark it to some other judge. The CJI cannot take the plea. There is nothing in the rules that bars him from marking the case to anyone else. He is the master of the roster.

It’s unfortunate and sad to see that advocates (who are MPS) have signed such a petition.

We advocates practise in courts. This is all happening in the political sphere. I am not a politician so I cannot say anything on numbers [whether Congress has enough support or not to have gotten the motion through had it been admitted].

NOTHING IN THE RULES BARS THE CJI FROM MARKING THE CASE TO ANYONE ELSE. HE IS THE MASTER OF THE ROSTER.