Public discourse was sharply polarised on Friday with the Opposition initiating an unprecedented impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, a move dubbed by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley as the Congress’s “revenge petition” for not having got the judiciary to implicate BJP President Amit Shah in the death of CBI court Judge BH Loya.

The process of impeachment was signed by 71 Rajya Sabha MPs from seven Opposition parties a day after a Supreme Court bench headed by the CJI dismissed pleas for an independent probe into the death of Judge Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case in which Shah had once been an accused.

From the ruling party’s side, the Finance Minister released a five-page note titled ‘Justice Loya Death Case — The One That Almost Created a Judicial Mutiny’ targeting the Congress for misusing the power of impeachment as a “political tool” and devaluing the Constitutional process of ensuring inter-institutional accountability. “It is a revenge petition after the falsehood of the Congress party has been established in the Justice Loya death case. It is an attempt to intimidate a Judge and send a message to other judges that if you don’t agree with us, 50 MPs are enough for a revenge action,” said the Finance Minister.

The Congress, however, asserted that the motion was linked to the questionable manner in which the CJI has dealt with some cases, leading four sitting judges of the Supreme Court to make their dissent public earlier this year.

The legal community seemed divided on the issue. On one side were activist lawyers such as Prashant Bhushan contending that “impeachment was the only option left to secure accountability for the CJI’s repeated acts of misconduct”. On the other side was former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, who said: “People should learn to accept an unfavourable order... The SC has given good reasons to not accept the pleas (in Loya’s case). You can’t have an impeachment motion because you don’t like a certain judgment.” The day started with a delegation of the opposition parties, led by Congress veteran Ghulam Nabi Azad, submitting a notice to Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu for an impeachment motion against the CJI. The Opposition has laid five charges against the CJI, including abuse of power.

If the Chairman accepts the notice, as per the law, he has to constitute a committee to probe the charges. If he rejects the notice, he may have to submit the reason for doing so. Though the leaders did not reveal the names of signatories, members of the Congress, CPI(M), CPI, BSP, NCP, SP and IUML have reportedly signed on it. Sixty four MPs and seven members, whose terms ended in the first week April, have signed.

Divisions within Congress?

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his senior colleagues P Chidambaram and Abhishek Singhvi have apparently not signed. “We didn’t involve Manmohan Singh intentionally, as he is an ex-PM. We didn’t want a few others to be embarrassed as certain matters are pending,” said former Law Minister Kapil Sibal, in an indication that there are disagreements within the Congress over the impeachment motion.

The five charges

* A “conspiracy to pay illegal gratification” in the Prasad Education Trust case and the denial of permission to proceed against a retired High Court judge in the same matter.

* The CJI has allegedly dealt on the administrative and judicial side with a writ petition that sought an investigation into the matter of Prasad Education Trust, in which he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation.

* Listing the petition against the Prasad Education Trust before himself, even when he was heading the Constitution bench, and doing so was against the convention.

* A piece of land which Misra acquired as an advocate by giving a “false affidavit” and the plot was surrendered in 2012 when he was elevated to the Supreme Court, even though orders cancelling the allotment were given in 1985.

* The abuse of exercise of power by the Chief Justice in choosing to send sensitive matters to particular benches by misusing his authority as Master of the Roster with the likely intent to influence the outcome