(I) Whether the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) can conduct an inquiry against Hon’ble Justices Sh. Vikram Nath and Sh. Sandeep Mehta in terms of the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209, with respect to alleged violations of the fundamental rights of advocates, Smt. Menka Gandhi, and others?
(II) Whether, in the prevailing circumstances, is it possible that the next Chief Justice of India may be Hon’ble Justice B. V. Nagarathna instead of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath?
(III) Whether it is possible that Hon’ble Justice J. K. Maheshwari may be appointed as the Executive Chairman of NALSA in place of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath?
Following facts emerged from the fact check:-
- Point No2:- Jurisdiction of National Human Rights Commission in cases of violation of fundamental rights by the Judge of the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court, in the landmark judgment of Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209, has categorically held that the National Human Rights Commission is having jurisdiction to enquire the cases where violation of fundamental and human rights occurs due to judicial orders even if they are passed by the Supreme Court Judge.
- The above judgment stands reaffirmed by the Nine-Judge Constitution Bench in S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Point No2:- The Complaint before National Human Rights Commission:-
- It is verified that a formal petition has been filed before the National Human Rights Commission by advocates and civil society groups, including the Indian Lawyers and Human Rights Activists Association, seeking an independent and impartial inquiry into the impugned conduct and requesting that Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath be removed from the post of Executive Chairman of NALSA.
- These representations further urge that, in view of the serious allegations and their grave impact on constitutional rights, Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath should not be considered for appointment as the next Chief Justice of India.
- The complaints specifically relate to gross violations of the fundamental and constitutional rights of Smt. Menaka Gandhi, several advocates—including women advocates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Communities—Senior Advocate Shri Raju Ramachandran, and others.
- The complaint, based on publicly available video recordings of the proceedings, points out that the conduct of Hon’ble Justices Shri Vikram Nath and Shri Sandeep Mehta in obstructing advocates from representing Smt. Menaka Gandhi and others amounts to serious constitutional impropriety. It is alleged that remarks were made suggesting that Senior Advocate Shri Raju Ramachandran could represent a terrorist like Ajmal Kasab but ought not to have accepted the brief of Smt. Menaka Gandhi as she was accused of contempt. Similar remarks and threats were also directed against sixteen other advocates in a separate contempt matter.
- It is further alleged that observations were made to the effect that a person accused of contempt can be sentenced to jail without any notice, trial, opportunity of defence, or legal representation. Such views, if correctly reflected in the recordings, demonstrate that Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath has acted in direct violation of constitutional guarantees under Articles 39-A, 21, 14, and 20 of the Constitution of India, as well as binding precedents of Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court which mandate that contempt proceedings are essentially quasi-criminal in character and that a person accused of contempt is entitled to all constitutional and procedural protections available to an accused in ordinary criminal proceedings. This legal position has been authoritatively affirmed in Khushi Ram v. Sheo Vati, (1953) 1 SCC 726 (Constitution Bench); Hari Das v. State of W.B., (1964) 7 SCR 237 (Full Bench); P. Mohanraj v. Shah Bros. Ispat (P) Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 258 (Three-Judge Bench); and Bloom v. State of Illinois, 1968 SCC OnLine US SC 939 (Nine-Judge Bench).
- Consequently, the matter has assumed extremely serious dimensions, raising the fundamental question as to whether a person who is alleged to have consistently acted against the Constitution of India can continue to hold the post of Executive Chairman of NALSA.
- Demand of removal of Justice Vikram Nath as Executive Chairman, NALSA:-
- The complaint alleges that, it is a matter of grave and serious concern that Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath is presently serving as the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), a statutory and constitutional body created with the specific objective of ensuring free and effective legal aid and meaningful access to justice for all citizens, particularly the poor, women, and marginalized sections of society.
- The mandate of NALSA is to strengthen the right to legal representation and to promote fearless and competent advocacy on behalf of every litigant, irrespective of the nature of the allegations against him. Any remarks or conduct emanating from a constitutional authority that have the effect of discouraging, intimidating, or dissuading advocates from representing clients stand in direct conflict with the very philosophy, purpose, and constitutional mandate of NALSA.
- Such observations not only undermine the independence of the Bar but also create a chilling effect on the fundamental right to legal aid and fair representation, which NALSA is duty-bound to protect and promote. The continuance of a person in the position of Executive Chairman of NALSA, while simultaneously engaging in conduct inconsistent with its core objectives, is institutionally inappropriate and legally untenable.
- In these circumstances, the impugned conduct constitutes a compelling and independent ground for recommending the removal of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath from the post of Executive Chairman, NALSA, so as to preserve the credibility, neutrality, and constitutional purpose of that vital institution.
- Breach of Oath Taken as a Supreme Court Judge makes discontinuance of office ? :-
- The complaint mentions about Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, and in several other judgments, has categorically ruled that Judges are accountable to society and that their accountability must be judged by their conscience and the oath of their office—to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.
- Similarly, in C. Pollard v. Satya Gopal Mazumdar, 1943 SCC OnLine Cal 153, it was ruled that violation of the judicial oath renders a person unfit for public office
- As constitutional functionaries entrusted with the solemn task of adjudication, Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court are bound to discharge their duties in a fair and impartial manner, strictly in accordance with law and the principles enshrined in the Constitution.
- In C. Chandy v. R. Balakrishna Pillai, AIR 1986 Ker 116, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, while examining the constitutional significance of the oath of office, authoritatively held Oath of office is not an empty formality with no constitutional significance and is a ‘violation of the Constitution’being a breach of the oath taken by the President.”
These authoritative pronouncements clearly establish that the judicial oath is a solemn constitutional commitment and that any conduct of a Judge inconsistent with impartiality, integrity, or adherence to the Constitution amounts to actionable misbehaviour within the constitutional framework.
- In Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, (2008) 10 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Judges, as constitutional functionaries, are bound by a heightened duty to scrupulously adhere to constitutional norms and to demonstrate exemplary discipline and fidelity to the rule of law. Those who have been entrusted with the solemn task of administering the system and operating various organs of the State, and who take an oath to act in accordance with the Constitution and to uphold the same, are required to set an example by exhibiting total commitment to constitutional ideals. This principle must be observed with even greater rigour by members of the judicial fraternity, who have been vested with the authority to adjudicate upon important constitutional and legal issues and to protect and preserve the rights of individuals and society as a whole. Discipline is sine qua non for the effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system. If the courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the rule of law, it is inconceivable to countenance any violation of constitutional principles by those who are themselves entrusted with the duty of laying down the law.
- In P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 (Judges Transfer Case), it was held that when a Judge allows his judgment or conduct to be influenced by irrelevant considerations, he commits a breach of his oath, amounting to misbehavior within the meaning of Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution.
- Impact of Judicial Misconduct:-
- In Superintendent of Central Excise v. Somabhai Ranchhodhbhai Patel, (2001) 5 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed serious concern that judicial incompetence or negligence directly affects the rights and liberties of litigants and erodes faith in the justice delivery system.
- In Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee, (1995) 5 SCC 457, the Supreme Court emphatically observed: “The bad behaviour of one Judge has a rippling effect on the reputation of the judiciary as a whole.”
- The Court warned that arrogance, impropriety, or obstinacy on the part of a Judge can seriously damage the institutional credibility of the judiciary.
- The Court further held that a Judge must maintain the highest standards of propriety and probity, both inside and outside the courtroom. Wilful abuse of judicial office, persistent failure to perform judicial duties, or conduct actuated by malice amounts to misbehaviour warranting constitutional action. Even where impeachment may not be immediately warranted, conduct causing widespread public dissatisfaction must be addressed through appropriate institutional mechanisms.
- These solemn observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stand fully attracted to the present circumstances, where the alleged conduct of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath has raised serious concerns regarding adherence to constitutional norms, judicial discipline, and respect for binding precedents.
- Summary of Fact Check :-
- Prima facie, the case against Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath appears to be very strong, as it is based upon video recordings of the concerned proceedings as well as additional supporting material and documentary evidence. The available material, on its face, sufficiently demonstrates the alleged violations, and no further elaborate proof may be required to establish a credible basis for inquiry.
- Secondly, the legal position is clear and well-settled, which indicates that the conduct attributed to Justice Vikram Nath has resulted in violation of the fundamental constitutional rights of Smt. Menaka Gandhi and others, and also adversely affected the independence of the Bar, and thereby amounts to a breach of the constitutional oath taken by a Judge to uphold the Constitution and the laws. Supreme Court and High Court rulings made it clear that violation of the judicial oath renders a person unfit for public office. The complaint alleges that the Supreme Court has ruled that if any Judge is not having knowledge of law then it will impact all the litigants and immediate action against the Judge is mandatory.
- In view of the aforesaid strong and undisputed factual and legal position, a demand is made in the complaint that, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Justice Vikram Nath is required to step down from the post of Executive Chairman of NALSA.
- It is further prayed in the complaint that as per Additional District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. High Court of M.P., AIR 2015 SC 645, appropriate inquiry be recommended under the In-House Procedure against him, followed by necessary steps for initiation of impeachment proceedings, and that, in the meantime, no judicial work be assigned to Justice Vikram Nath in order to safeguard the interests of justice and public confidence in the judiciary.
- If the above request is accepted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, then only there is a possibility that, :-
- instead of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, the name of Hon’ble Justice B. V. Nagarathna—being next in the established order of seniority—may be considered and recommended for appointment as the next Chief Justice of India.
- Hon’ble Justice J. K. Maheshwari may be appointed as the Executive Chairman of NALSA in place of Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath.
- However, as of date, no official statement or communication has been issued by the Supreme Court of India in this regard. It is pertinent to note that the final authority in matters of such appointments and recommendations exclusively vests in the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.
- So far as the jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is concerned, it does not possess any direct adjudicatory power over judges of the Supreme Court. The NHRC can, at best, initiate appropriate legal proceedings, including filing a writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, or recommend to the Learned Attorney General of India to file such writs and/or take suitable legal steps for the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens and for addressing alleged violations.
- Additionally, the NHRC may issue lawful recommendations and suggestions aimed at preventing recurrence of such incidents in future and for securing protection and remedies to the affected parties. Nevertheless, any final decision or action in this regard ultimately rests within the constitutional domain and discretion of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.