The oft-quoted observation of Justice M.Patanjali Sastri in State of Madras vs V.G.Row, Union of India, and others that "Supreme Court has the role of a sentinel on the qui vive" has been perversely perceived by the present generation of judges. Scholarly Sastri meant that the court should eternally be on guard to protect citizens' rights. CJI Justice Dipak Misra seems to have mistaken it to mean that the court ought to jealously protect the interests of the judges.
How else can one interpret CJI's egregious violation of the first principle of natural justice that "no one shall be a judge in his own case" (Nemo judex in causa sua) ?
There is a pending petition of one Prasad Education Trust (PET) in the Supreme Court. It is up for hearing in the court presided over by the CJI. Meanwhile CBI arrested Justice I.M.Quddusi formerly of the Orissa High Court and some of his alleged co-conspirators on the allegation that they were conspiring to subvert justice by bribing judges in the PET case. So there is an allegation, however far fetched or truthful it may be, that the CJI and may be some other judges are sought to be compromised.
Senior advocates Prashant Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal smelt blood in this development and started playing their card. We will visit this a little later. Before that let us see what the Bhushans think of Misras.
Shanti Bhushan who was the Law Minister during 1977-79 is an eminent lawyer and is Prashant Bhushan's father. In September, 2010 Shanti Bhushan presented a list of 16 judges who he alleged were probably corrupt in an open hearing in the Supreme Court and dared the court to punish him for contempt. (Needless to add , he was not punished lest further skeletons should stumble out of the cupboard.) The list was topped by Justice Ranganath Mishra who was the CJI during 1990-91. The present CJI Justice Dipak Misra is Ranganath Mishra's nephew.
Way back in the year 1979 when Dipak Misra was a practising lawyer, the Orissa government allotted to him 2 acres of land on lease. Dipak Misra, in order to be eligible for this lease, had falsely declared that he was not owning any land. This impropriety was highlighted by Shanti Bhushan in an article he wrote in thewire.in in August 2017 to forestall the possible appointment of Justice Dipak Misra, the then second senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, as CJI . However, Misra took charge as CJI on August 27.
An NGO, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), filed a petition in the Supreme Court pleading for converting the CBI case in the Prasad Education Trust issue into a court-monitored SIT case. The case was argued by Prashant Bhushan pleading that the case be heard by a larger Bench but without the CJI since there was apparently an allegation against him. Subsequent to the admission of this petition, Kamini Jaiswal's petition seeking a similar remedy was mentioned in the court of Justice Jasti Chalameswar who is next only to CJI in seniority. Justice Chalameswar took cognisance of the seriousness of the issue and ruled that a 5-judge Bench should hear the case and that five senior-most judges would be on the Bench (this obviously includes the CJI also). The five senior-most judges are the CJI, Chalameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M.B.Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Surprisingly, but significantly, the latter three judges do not figure in the controversial development so far. (It is interesting at least as an aside that Dipak Misra and Chalameswar were appointed to the Supreme Court on the same day, Oct 10, 2011.)
Chalameswar's decision to constitute a 5-judge Bench was over-ruled by a 5-judge Bench consisting of the CJI, Justices R.K.Agrawal, Arun Mishra , Amitava Roy and A.M.Khanwilkar. CJI also ruled that this 5-judge Bench will hear the petitions of Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR. This august Bench has held that the CJI is the master of roster and therefore he alone can decide which case would be taken up by which Bench. Such a scrupulous Bench which is respectful of court procedure is also expected to defer to principles of natural justice and keep the CJI away from a Bench which looks into issues involving him.
We can expect more fireworks from the Supreme Court in the near future. A recent cartoon regarding the American Congress says that what was meant to be an institution of checks and balances has become an institution of only checks (cheques). It is hoped that our Supreme Court will not reduce itself to be similarly portrayed.
How else can one interpret CJI's egregious violation of the first principle of natural justice that "no one shall be a judge in his own case" (Nemo judex in causa sua) ?
There is a pending petition of one Prasad Education Trust (PET) in the Supreme Court. It is up for hearing in the court presided over by the CJI. Meanwhile CBI arrested Justice I.M.Quddusi formerly of the Orissa High Court and some of his alleged co-conspirators on the allegation that they were conspiring to subvert justice by bribing judges in the PET case. So there is an allegation, however far fetched or truthful it may be, that the CJI and may be some other judges are sought to be compromised.
Senior advocates Prashant Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal smelt blood in this development and started playing their card. We will visit this a little later. Before that let us see what the Bhushans think of Misras.
Shanti Bhushan who was the Law Minister during 1977-79 is an eminent lawyer and is Prashant Bhushan's father. In September, 2010 Shanti Bhushan presented a list of 16 judges who he alleged were probably corrupt in an open hearing in the Supreme Court and dared the court to punish him for contempt. (Needless to add , he was not punished lest further skeletons should stumble out of the cupboard.) The list was topped by Justice Ranganath Mishra who was the CJI during 1990-91. The present CJI Justice Dipak Misra is Ranganath Mishra's nephew.
Way back in the year 1979 when Dipak Misra was a practising lawyer, the Orissa government allotted to him 2 acres of land on lease. Dipak Misra, in order to be eligible for this lease, had falsely declared that he was not owning any land. This impropriety was highlighted by Shanti Bhushan in an article he wrote in thewire.in in August 2017 to forestall the possible appointment of Justice Dipak Misra, the then second senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, as CJI . However, Misra took charge as CJI on August 27.
An NGO, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), filed a petition in the Supreme Court pleading for converting the CBI case in the Prasad Education Trust issue into a court-monitored SIT case. The case was argued by Prashant Bhushan pleading that the case be heard by a larger Bench but without the CJI since there was apparently an allegation against him. Subsequent to the admission of this petition, Kamini Jaiswal's petition seeking a similar remedy was mentioned in the court of Justice Jasti Chalameswar who is next only to CJI in seniority. Justice Chalameswar took cognisance of the seriousness of the issue and ruled that a 5-judge Bench should hear the case and that five senior-most judges would be on the Bench (this obviously includes the CJI also). The five senior-most judges are the CJI, Chalameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M.B.Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Surprisingly, but significantly, the latter three judges do not figure in the controversial development so far. (It is interesting at least as an aside that Dipak Misra and Chalameswar were appointed to the Supreme Court on the same day, Oct 10, 2011.)
Chalameswar's decision to constitute a 5-judge Bench was over-ruled by a 5-judge Bench consisting of the CJI, Justices R.K.Agrawal, Arun Mishra , Amitava Roy and A.M.Khanwilkar. CJI also ruled that this 5-judge Bench will hear the petitions of Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR. This august Bench has held that the CJI is the master of roster and therefore he alone can decide which case would be taken up by which Bench. Such a scrupulous Bench which is respectful of court procedure is also expected to defer to principles of natural justice and keep the CJI away from a Bench which looks into issues involving him.
We can expect more fireworks from the Supreme Court in the near future. A recent cartoon regarding the American Congress says that what was meant to be an institution of checks and balances has become an institution of only checks (cheques). It is hoped that our Supreme Court will not reduce itself to be similarly portrayed.
No comments:
Post a Comment