On 28th December 1948 Mr. Kazi Syed Kareemudeen [CP Berar Muslim] spoke at the Constituent Assembly as follows;
Mr. VP, I move,
That the following new sub clause be inserted after sub clause B of Clause 2 of Article 50.
[C] The meeting shall be Presided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court whose decision on the admissibility of evidence shall be final.
There is no mention in Article 50 as to who should Preside at the meeting or sittings for the impeachment of the President therefore I have made an attempt to add a sub clause in which it is laid down that the meeting or sitting shall be Presided by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, I support that if this Amendment is not accepted then either the Speaker or a Vice President have to Preside at such meetings obviously there is an objection to the Vice President as he is likely to succeed if the President is removed. The Speaker also should not be allowed to Preside at this meetings because generally he is elected from the majority party when there is impeachment of the President political passions will be running so high that there is bound an imperceptible change in the Vice President of the Speaker, there is no doubt there are instances in India and in England when the Speaker and the Vice President have maintained the noble traditions of the House, but it is necessary not only that there should be justice but it should appear that you are doing justice at such critical time when there is an impeachment of the highest man in the Country is very necessary that the Presiding Officer must be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”
Comment: The procedure ensures that Judiciary will have the ultimate role in deciding the outcome of impeachment proceeding.