Introduction
The case of K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India, 1991 primarily involves the issue of criminal misconduct by the Chief Justice of a High Court, under Sec. 5(1)(e) and punishable under sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Facts of K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India, 1991
A complaint against the former Chief Justice of a High Court (appellant) was made to the CBI and an FIR was filed in the Special Court; accusing the Chief Justice of Criminal Misconduct under sec.5(1)(e) and punishable under sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The charge sheet stated that the appellant, during the course of bearing the office of the Chief Justice, was gradually accumulating assets and had possession of pecuniary resources and property under the name of his wife, sons and himself. On the other hand, the appellant, under sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedural Code, moved the high court and requested to quash the said criminal proceedings.
The appeal was dismissed by the high court, stating that the court is not the competent authority, and the competent authority by which the matter shall be decided is parliament.
Issues
there were three issues raised in the matter:
- Whether the Chief Justice of the high court or a Judge of a Supreme Court is a ‘Public Servant’ or not;
- Whether the Court is the competent authority to assess the matter or not;
- Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge of a Supreme Court can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Arguments
For the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 do not apply to the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Power to remove a Public Servant is vested in the two houses of the Parliament and not in any other authority.
The petitioner also contended that no prosecution could be launched against the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Judge of Supreme Court provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 except in the mode suggested by Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution and also that having possession of property or assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income is not an offense unless he is unable to account for it.
For the respondent:
The respondent relied on the investigation and the evidence provided by the CBI. The appellant himself accepted the disproportionate accumulation of assets by him, so the only issue to be sorted is that which would be the competent authority to assess the matter.
Judgment on K. Veeraswami vs UOI, 1991
The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition stating that the court is not the competent authority to assess the matter and that the matter to remove or punish the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Judge of the Supreme Court shall be assessed by the two houses of the Parliament following the due procedure suggested by Article 124(4) of the Indian Constitution.
Conclusion
The need for a competent authority to assess the matters related to the removal and punishing of the Chief Justice of High Courts and the Judges of the Supreme Court in case of criminal misconduct was felt and to asses such matters, the parliament should put forward proper guidelines to be followed to make sure the smooth functioning of such proceedings
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
