With Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu rejecting the Opposition’s notice for impeachment of Chief Justice Dipak Misra on Monday, the Congress is likely to move the Supreme Court against the order.

Naidu cited lack of substantial merit in it as he rejected the notice given by opposition parties led by the Congress.

Vice-President Naidu’s order drew sharp reaction from the Congress as spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala asserted that the Rajya Sabha Chairman “can’t adjudge the motion, for he has no mandate to decide the merits of the motion”.

In a series of tweets, Surjewala wrote: “Constitutional process of impeachment is set in motion with 50 MP’s giving the motion.

RS Chairman can’t adjudge the motion, for he has no mandate to decide the merits of the motion.

This is truly a fight between forces ‘Rejecting Democracy’ & voices ‘Rescuing Democracy’.”

Constitutional process of impeachment is set in motion with 50 MP’s giving the motion.

RS Chairman can’t adjudge the motion, for he has no mandate to decide the merits of the motion.

This is truly a fight between forces ‘Rejecting Democracy’ & voices ‘Rescuing Democracy’.
1/3

— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) April 23, 2018

“Within hours of 64 MP’s submitting the impeachment motion, Leader of Rajya Sabha(FM) had expressed naked prejudice by calling it a ‘revenge petition’ virtually dictating the verdict to Rajya Sabha Chairman on that day.”

“Has ‘Revenge Petition’ now become ‘Rescue Order’?

2/3
Within hours of 64 MP’s submitting the impeachment motion, Leader of Rajya Sabha(FM) had expressed naked prejudice by calling it a ‘revenge petition’ virtually dictating the verdict to Rajya Sabha Chairman on that day.

Has ‘Revenge Petition’ now become ‘Rescue Order’?

— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) April 23, 2018

RS Chairman can’t decide on merits in absence of quasi judicial or administrative power (M.Krishna Swami’s case).

If all charges were to be proved before inquiry as RS Chairman suggests, Constitution & Judges (Inquiry) Act will have no relevance.

Don’t muzzle Constitution,” he went on to add.

3/3
RS Chairman can’t decide on merits in absence of quasi judicial or administrative power (M.Krishna Swami’s case).

If all charges were to be proved before inquiry as RS Chairman suggests, Constitution & Judges (Inquiry) Act will have no relevance.

Don’t muzzle Constitution

— Randeep Singh Surjewala (@rssurjewala) April 23, 2018

Senior lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan, who appeared surprised by Naidu’s order, sought to know on what grounds the motion was rejected.

“What!! VP Naidu rejects impeachment motion against CJI signed by 64 RS MPs! On what grounds? He has no power to say that charges are not made out. That’s for the inquiry committee of 3 judges. He only has to see if it’s signed by >50 MPs & possibly if charges are of misbehaviour,” he wrote on Twitter.

What!! VP Naidu rejects impeachment motion against CJI signed by 64 RS MPs! On what grounds? He has no power to say that charges are not made out. That’s for the inquiry committee of 3 judges. He only has to see if it’s signed by >50 MPs & possibly if charges are of misbehaviour

— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) April 23, 2018

On Sunday, Naidu had held extensive consultations with top legal and constitutional experts, including former chief justices and judges, before taking the decision, sources said.

After taking his decision, Naidu claimed that the motion didn’t deserve to be admitted.

“Based on all this, I have come to the conclusion that this motion does not deserve to be admitted…On careful analysis and reflection, I find there is virtually no concrete verifiable imputation. We cannot allow any of our pillars of governance to be weakened by any thought, word or action,” he said.

“I have considered the material contained in the Notice of Motion and reflected upon the inputs received in my interaction with legal luminaries and constitutional experts, I am of the firm opinion that the Notice of Motion does not deserve to be admitted. I refuse to admit the Notice of Motion,” he added.

This was the first time ever that an impeachment notice has been filed against a sitting CJI.