E-Paper
Congress against challenging impeachment order of CJI in court
Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi welcomed his party’s decision to withdraw the petition challenging Naidu’s rejection of an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.
The Congress, the principal Opposition party, seems to have buried its plans to legally challenge Rajya Sabha chairperson M Venkaiah Naidu’s order on the Opposition’s notice seeking the removal of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, said three party leaders in the know of things.
The stand, however, comes after deep divisions over the move within the party.
Senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi on Friday welcomed his party’s decision to withdraw the petition challenging Naidu’s rejection of an impeachment motion against CJI Misra.
“Good and wise decision of Congress not to pursue impeachment issue with Cong MPs in SC any further,” he tweeted.
Two Congress Rajya Sabha MPs Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Yajnik, withdrew their petition challenging Naidu’s rejection of the motion against CJI Misra on May 8 after the court refused to provide details of an administrative order that led to setting up of a constitutional bench to hear the matter.
The two MPs had moved the top court, alleging Naidu’s rejection was politically motivated.
Party insiders suggested that one section within the Congress pursued the motion in the wake of the four Supreme Court judges’ outburst at an unprecedented press conference in January, during which they aired grievances against the way the Chief Justice was allocating cases, exercising his power as master of the roster. This section thought a notice for impeachment would serve as a deterrent. The other section, led by Singhvi, felt that the move could portray the Congress as ‘anti-judiciary’ and would yield little since the party lacked numbers in the House to get it passed.
Singhvi even wrote a seven-point argument on why the Congress should not move the notice to the Rajya Sabha chairman.
“After Naidu rejected the notice, Singhvi gave another note to the party High Command saying that the rejection has given a chance for an honourable exit and it must be used. He not only cautioned the party from pushing its luck in the Supreme Court but also refused to appear for a subsequent appeal in the apex court,” said a senior party member.
Former law minister Salman Khurshid also maintained that “impeachment is too serious a matter to be played with frivolously on the grounds of disagreement with any judgement or point of view of the court.” He, however, added that he was not party or privy to discussions that took place between different sections within the Congress on the issue.
As many as 71 Rajya Sabha MPs from the Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Indian Union Muslim League signed the notice submitted to Naidu on April 20.
With seven signatories having retired, 64 sitting Rajya Sabha MPs had effectively signed the motion; the minimum number required is 50.
Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, former finance minister P Chidambaram and senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh were among the members who had not signed the notice.
While Singh had not been involved in drafting the notice of motion because of his stature as a former PM, Chidambaram was “deliberately kept away” because of the INX Media and Aircel-Maxis cases pending against his son Karti.
Soon after Naidu rejected the motion on April 23, senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal had termed his order as “unprecedented, illegal, ill-advised and hasty” and asserted that the party would challenge it in the Supreme Court.
He had also hoped that the CJI would have “nothing to do” with the petition when it would come up for listing in the court. As the master of the roster, it is the CJI who assigns cases.
When asked about the party’s decision to not take forward the legal challenge, Vivek Tankha, the chief of Congress’ legal department, said, “If withdrawal of petition leads to greater cohesion and faith in the independence and integrity of our Judiciary, it would gladden any sane heart.”
