- (1.) This writ petition is by a body of advocates styled "Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability" and raises certain questions as to the validity and implementation of the action of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha admitting a notice of motion moved by 108 Members of Parliament under Article 124(5) read with the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and constituting an Inquiry Committee consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of a High Court and a jurist to investigate into the allegations of misconduct made against a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court pertaining to his conduct as the erstwhile Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
(2.) The main prayers in the writ petition are that the Union Government be directed to afford facilities to the Inquiry Committee to discharge its constitutional and statutory functions; and for directions to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to abstain from allocating any judicial work to the concerned Judge during the pendency of the proceedings before the Committee. In regard to the latter prayer that notice should go to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, we think that aspect of the matter should be deferred for the present and considered at the appropriate stage of the final hearing. In regard to the directions to the Union Government, the Union Government by means of an affidavit subscribed to by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, has made manifest its stand that in its view the motion initiated by the 108 Members of Parliament on which the Speaker took the decision to constitute a Committee had lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha and that nothing further remains to be done in this matter. It is in that view, as averred in the affidavit, that the Government of India did not advise the President to issue any notification as required by Para 9 read with Para 1 1(b)(i), Part D of Second Schedule to the Constitution enabling the sitting Judge of this Court and the Chief Justice of a High Court to reckon the time spent by them in functioning as members of the Committee as part of their 'actual service'. The contention of the petitioner is that having regard to the constitutional and statutory obligations of the sitting Judges who function in the Committee, the time spent by them in performance of such function is to be reckoned as part of their 'actual service' as Judges and no notification under the concerned provisions by the President is necessary.
(3.) It is relevant to mention here that some of the interveners who seek to oppose the writ petition have, in addition to their stand against the writ petition, also filed individual writ petitions of their own in which, more or less, they seek to endorse the stand taken by the Government raising the question as to whether the motion survives the dissolution of the Lok Sabha or not.;