Impeachment is not merely a cumbersome business. It could also have divisive and other unintended consequences. This explains the sense of relief that Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court resigned on the eve of his certain impeachment by the Lok Sabha. It is welcome that there was a political consensus that the proceedings had become infructuous after his resignation had been accepted by the President. To have pressed on with impeachment, as Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati reportedly advised, may be justified on an interpretation of the law relating to Parliament and its functioning. But in a situation without clear precedents, it was far better that robust common sense prevailed, leading to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to impeach a person who has already demitted high office. Why Justice Sen did not see the light earlier and submit his resignation well before the Rajya Sabha voted overwhelmingly in favour of his impeachment, only he can explain.
This is the second time Parliament has grappled with the challenge of impeaching a judge. But the circumstances relating to Justice Sen are strikingly different from those that saw Justice V. Ramaswami let off the hook in 1993, when the Congress abstained from voting on the motion. Although the power to impeach vests with Parliament, the move was kick-started — unusually and extraordinarily — by Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan. He had recommended to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that impeachment proceedings be initiated under Article 124(4) of the Constitution against Justice Sen on the basis of an in-house inquiry, which declared him guilty of financial misconduct. Another unusual aspect is that the charges relate to a period when Justice Sen was a lawyer (he became a judge in 2003) and a case in which he was made a court-appointed receiver in 1984. Even though he was absolved of “misappropriation” by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, there is no doubt that he had acted with gross impropriety. He had mixed the funds entrusted in his capacity as a receiver with his own, failed to prepare and file accounts as required, and repaid the money with interest in 2006 only after he was directed to do so by a judge of the Calcutta High Court. Disgraced he might be, but anti-corruption campaigners will contend that he has got away lightly. There are two key lessons to be learnt from l'affaire Sen. The first and obvious lesson is that only those with impeccable integrity must be appointed to the higher judiciary. The second is that legislation for a Judicial Conduct Commission with a strong mandate has become an urgent imperative.
