RS to turn into courtroom for Sen impeachment
For the first time, the Rajya Sabha will be converted into a court on Wednesday for the impeachment proceeding against justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta high court. HT reports.delhi Updated: Aug 17, 2011 01:11 IST
For the first time, the Rajya Sabha will be converted into a court on Wednesday for the impeachment proceeding against justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta high court.
The Upper House of the Parliament will make history when it initiates the process against the controversial judge, who has been held guilty on corruption charges by a specially constituted committee.
The impeachment proceedings against justice Sen on the notice served by 58 opposition MPs is the main reason why the opposition parties withdrew their proposal to boycott the Parliament for three days in protest against Anna Hazare’s arrest.
The decision was taken at a meeting of four opposition parties on Tuesday after both Houses were adjourned for the day. CPM leader Sitaram Yechury will move the motion and justice Sen is likely to be present to defend himself with three lawyers.
A “bar” will be “posted” at the gate of the central aisle of the upper house facing the chairman. A rostrum and a chair will be placed for justice Sen or his counsel to present his case before the MPs.
The bar is an indicator to show that a non-member or an “outsider” cannot enter the House when it is meeting. Justice Sen, 53, will be the second judge against whom impeachment proceedings will be initiated in the Parliament.
The first such case involved the impeachment motion in Lok Sabha of Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in May 1993 which fell due to lack of numbers after the Congress MPs walked out of the House.
The discussion on the motion is likely to spill over to Thursday (August 18) and the occasion is expected to be utilised by the members to express their views on judicial activism and overreach.
The first of the two grounds of misconduct against Justice Sen being cited in the motion is misappropriation of large sums of money, which he received in his capacity as receiver appointed by the high court as a lawyer in 1984.
The second ground is that he misrepresented facts with regard to the misappropriation of money before the high court.