"I am of the view that it is imperative that we should have extraordinary, important and substantial grounds for the removal of a judge", he explained.
Substantiating his argument, Sibal said that once the motion is admitted, then the under the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, the motion is sent to a panel of three - a sitting chief justice of a high court, a judge of the Supreme Court and a legal luminary, and added that did not happen in this case.
Sibal also questioned Naidu for the haste in pronouncing this order, saying, "What was the tearing hurry?"
Sibal had, following last week's verdict by a bench headed by the Chief Justice which refused to order an investigation into the mysterious death of CBI judge BH Loya, publicly declared that he would not appear in any case being heard in the court of Chief Justice Dipak Misra till he demits office in October.
Article 124 (4) of the Constitution lays down the procedure for removal of a judge of the Supreme Court, including the CJI, who can be impeached on grounds of "misbehaviour or incapacity". "The Modi government is now destroying these institutions by appointing RSS ideologues to occupy important positions".
Accusing Naidu of being wrong on all counts, Sibal said: "The Chairman is supposed to consult the CJI. Why has he not even sought legal opinion before deciding on our motion", he said.
China Focus: Xi, Modi to meet in central China
She added that the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra through Nathu La will resume this year. China congratulates India on becoming a member of the SCO, Wang said.
In the final order rejecting the notice that was signed by Naidu on Monday morning, the Rajya Sabha Chairman has held that the MPs who moved the notice "were unsure of their own case".
Naidu said he had detailed personal conversation on all aspects arising from the notice and had considered each of the allegations made in it individually as well as collectively.
The Chairman's ruling came before proceedings opened in the Supreme Court on Monday apparently to enable the Chief Justice to continue his work uninterrupted.
".the phrases used by the Hon'ble Members of Parliament themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption". His order says that on "a careful analysis and reflection", he found "that there is virtually no concrete verifiable imputation".
They also said that Naidu continued with the discussions till late in the evening and also spoke to K. Parasaran, who was the Attorney General during the Congress govts. led by Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi and was also a member to the Upper House nominated by the party.
In a rebuttal to the order, Sibal said, "The motion has to be dealt with by the Chairman not in his judicial or quasi-judicial capacity: he has to see whether the motion is in order or not".