​​​
  1. The Supreme Court’s Split Decision: 4 senior judges revolt against Chief Justice of India

The Supreme Court’s Split Decision: 4 senior judges revolt against Chief Justice of India

The country's top court appeared precariously divided on Friday, after four judges, the senior-most after the Chief Justice of India (CJI), took the unprecedented step of holding a press conference to air their differences with the CJI over the way the highest judicial body is administered.

By: | Published: January 13, 2018 3:37 AM
Chief Justice of India, CJI, Judicial body, Supreme Court split The country’s top court appeared precariously divided on Friday, after four judges, the senior-most after the Chief Justice of India (CJI), took the unprecedented step of holding a press conference to air their differences with the CJI over the way the highest judicial body is administered.

The country’s top court appeared precariously divided on Friday, after four judges, the senior-most after the Chief Justice of India (CJI), took the unprecedented step of holding a press conference to air their differences with the CJI over the way the highest judicial body is administered. While these judges, led by justice Jasti Chelameswar, did not elaborate much on the issues involved, they shared a letter they had recently sent to the CJI with the media, where it is alleged that “cases having far-reaching consequences” were assigned by “the Chief Justices of this Court” to the benches “of their preference” without assigning any reason.  Chelameswar, who had in the past expressed his contrarian views on many issues concerning the judiciary in the relevant fora, including on the SC-imposed collegium-system to appoint and promote judges, acknowledged that it was “an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, more particularly this nation”.

He said, justice Ranjan Gogoi, the next in line to take over as the CJI in October this year, justices MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph had met the CJI Dipak Misra earlier in the day on a “particular issue” but their efforts to persuade him to “take steps to protect the institution” had failed.  Two more SC judges — SA Bobde and L Nageshwara Rao — went to Chelameswar’s residence, where the hurriedly convened press conference was held, later in the day, raising the possibility that they too owed allegiance to the four judges. On its part, the government, which is at variance with the Supreme Court on how appointments and promotions of the judges are to be made — the idea of a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) floated by it was struck down by the court — chose not to ostensibly step in.

Soon after the press conference, the CJI is believed to have met attorney general KK Venugopal to discuss the way forward. There were rumours of the CJI too planning to meet the media but that did not materialise. If Misra chooses to resign, Chelameswar is next in line to be CJI. In the seven-page letter, the four judges mentioned how an order passed by some SC judges was recalled by the bench headed by CJI Misra in the RP Luthra case. They raised the issue of delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure (MoP), on which detailed discussions were held by the collegium (comprising the top five judges of the Supreme Court) and submitted by the the CJI to the government in March 2017. “…there should be no further delay in finalisation of MoP in larger public interest,” the SC order in the Luthra case had said and was reiterated by the four judges as well in their letter to the CJI.

“A couple of months ago, the four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI,” Chelameswar said, adding, “We wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner. It was done but in such a way that it raised questions about the integrity of the institution.”  “This morning also we had to him with a specific request, but we couldn’t convince him. So we were left with no choice but request the nation to take care of the institution. The hallmark of democracy is independent judiciary,” he said.
When the judges were asked specifically whether the matter they had taken up with the CJI in the morning was connected to special CBI judge BH Loya, who is said to have died in suspicious circumstances, justice Gogoi nodded his head in affirmation.

On Thursday, two petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, seeking a probe into the death of Loya who had been hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. Both petitions, mentioned before a bench of Misra and justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud on Thursday, were marked to the bench of justices Arun Mishra and M Shantanagoudar who on Friday sought the Maharashtra government’s views on the plea for an independent probe into the death of Loya.  Asked whether the judges sought the impeachment of the chief justice, they said, “It is not for us to say… Let the nation decide.”

“There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches ‘of their preference’ without any rational basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs,” the four judges’ letter to CJI said.

Get live Stock Prices from BSE and NSE and latest NAV, portfolio of Mutual Funds, calculate your tax by Income Tax Calculator, know market’s Top Gainers, Top Losers & Best Equity Funds. Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

  1. P
    P Shenoy
    Jan 15, 2018 at 9:32 pm
    The press conference held by certain members of apex judiciary is unparalleled and unprecedented and likely to have far reaching consequences. Before this undesirable step, following recourse could have been had:- 1. Appraise the President of the matter seeking his excellency's intervention. 2. Meeting on this could have been had with the remaining members of the Apex Judiciary. 3. Once again meeting the CJI with larger members of Apex Judiciary. 4. Meeting of collective team of senior members of Apex Judiciary, Supreme Court Bar Association and Members of BCI with the CJI to sort out the issues. Having a press conference was not a wise as it would give the Press an uncontrolled access to various delicate matters eitherto kept away from them. If the option was excercised as a last resort, even then also it could not be of any avail as the audience targetted were people of India who have no stake in these matters. Lastly, but not the least opposition parties would misuse this.
    Reply
    1. Avinash Kumar
      Jan 13, 2018 at 9:02 am
      when judiciary gives verdict in your favor like in 2G was accountability was kept in mind. we also remember 42nd cons utional amendment and behavior of Indira Gandhi during emergency.42nd CAA included word 'secular', when judiciary banned firecrackers in Dewali and allowed in Christmas and new year, was word secularism kept in mind?? It was congress who always hijack democracy directly or indirectly. We also remember when Abhisekh manusinghvi (congress leader)represnted Reliance in Godavari D6 bloack to save his 2 UPA minister and reliance in Delhi high court. Kapil sibbal represented represnted AIMPLB in Ram mandir case in Supreme court, did you thought about word 'secularism'?? From independence how come only members of 30 family became judges of supreme court,was democracy was kept in mind??why NJAC was declared uncons utional, when parliament and 20 states passed the law, was democracy was kept in mind??
      Reply
      1. Dmg Klburg
        Jan 13, 2018 at 4:31 am
        EFFECT OF ANTI SHIKH RIOTS INQUIRY REOPENED, payback to their masters read out given text.
        Reply

        Go to Top