The Supreme Court on Friday said it was 'very disturbed' at the course of developments involving public statements by the members of Parliament on the removal of the Chief Justice of India.
The observations were made during the hearing of a petition, a few hours before the Congress and other opposition parties submitted a notice to Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu for initiating impeachment proceedings against CJI Dipak Misra.
The apex court said it was 'very unfortunate' that despite knowing the law that till a certain point, the issue of impeachment cannot be made public, the politicians were holding public discussions.
After a brief hearing, a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal to deal with the issue and a plea which has sought to lay of guidelines to regulate the procedure to be followed prior to initiating a motion for removing a judge of the top court.
"We all are very disturbed about it," Justice Sikri said while asking the attorney general to assist in the matter.
The move came a day after the apex court rejected the pleas of those, including Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla, seeking an independent probe into the death of special Central Bureau of Investigation Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case in which Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah was discharged by the court.
During the hearing on Friday, the apex court refused to gag the media at this stage from publishing or telecasting any information relating to the discussions and deliberations on the removal of judges of either the apex court or the high courts.
To this, the apex court said it would not do so without hearing the attorney general and posted the matter for hearing on May 7.
The plea, filed by the NGO, has sought laying down of guidelines or modalities regulating procedure to be followed by MPs, desirous of initiating proceedings for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court, prior to initiating a motion under Article 124(4) and (5) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution.
The petitioner has said the cause of action arose in the matter when a draft motion for removal of the CJI was released to the press on March 27 which had an effect of intimidating the judiciary.
"The Petitioners are also aggrieved by the act of bringing the draft motion in the public domain including releasing the same in the press and further statements being given by various MPs regarding their intention of initiating a motion to remove a judge of the Supreme Court even before such a motion was made in pursuance of the provision of Article 124(4) and (5) of the Constitution," the plea said.
The plea also said that the freedom of speech and expression does not postulate bringing down the image and intimidating the judiciary and setting a 'dangerous trend'.