Union Minister and senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley has said the Congress party’s impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India was” wholly misconceived, poorly drafted and lacked in substance”.
Reacting to Congress leader and senior advocate Kapil Sibal withdrawing the writ petition filed by two Congress MPs in the Supreme Court for a direction to the Rajya Sabha Chairman to order an enquiry by a committee into charges against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Jaitley has in a Facebook post said, in an apparent reference to four senior most judges turning against Misra, that the Congress wanted to fish in troubled waters.
He said:”Many of its traditional allies were not willing to take on this confrontation with the judicial institutions. Finding a divided court, the Congress wanted to fish in troubled waters”
If the motion for impeachment was unsustainable, the writ petition challenging the order of the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, was unarguable, he said. The rejection of a motion by a Speaker or the Chairman is a part of the legislative process. The rulings of the Chair on whether to admit a motion or otherwise, are not subject to judicial review. But wanting to fish in troubled waters, the Congress conceived of a strategy to choose a bench of its choice for mentioning, he charged..
Jaitley has gone on record that the impeachment motion moved by the Congress in the RajyaSabha was a revenge petition because it came a day after the apex court held judge Loya, who was hearing a case against BJP president Amit Shah, died a natural death. “It concocted the unnatural death theory. It now wanted a continuing sword to hang on the Chief Justice and hence the petition in the apex court. Having failed to have a bench of its choice, “it refused to argue its unarguable case on merits”, he said.
Jaitley was silent on why the CJI straightway referred the Congress MPs petition to a five-judge Constitution bench through an administrative when usually such benches are constituted through a judicial order, except where the President makes a reference on an issue that involves interpretation of the Constitution.