CJI Dipak Misra meets 4 dissenting Supreme Court judges

Media reports indicate that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has reached out to his four dissenting colleagues and held a 15-minute meeting on Tuesday to sort out their differences . They will meet again. This is a welcome step. It will be interesting to note the outcome of the meetings given the seriousness of the charge that the rebel judges had brought against the CJI. It is difficult to see how an amicable solution may still emerge. If the judges fall in line their dissent will be deemed pointless and an exercise in vanity that did little else other than robbing the Supreme Court of its veneer of respectability. If they don t we are in for a protracted crisis. However we must not get ahead of the story. For now the heart-to-heart chat is slated to resume on Wednesday. At this stage it is still unclear whether the four rebel judges have achieved their purpose in approaching the media. What is already clear though is that public perception about the Judiciary and the land s highest court has taken a severe beating. File image of CJI Dipak Misra. PTI In breaking the code and bringing their grievances against CJI Dipak Misra out in the open judges Jasti Chelameswar Ranjan Gogoi Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph have driven home the truth about the adage why judges should never be heard outside the court. For the last few days since that extraordinary press conference at Justice Chelameswar s residence media activists lawyers activist-lawyers NGOs sanctimonious eminent citizens members of the Lutyens ecosystem Opposition politicians and even the RSS have engaged in a free-for-all. As an institution the Supreme Court is being hauled over the coals doubts are being raised over everything including the constitution of benches to verdicts. The denigration has been swift tragic and irreversible. For instance a headline in Tuesday s edition of a national daily read: Four judges who criticised CJI Dipak Misra not on Bench that will hear 7 key matters . It is possible to draw an inference from the headline that there is a correlation between the dissenting judges conduct and their absence from key matters . The implications of such an inference go further. To recall the point of friction that led four judges to attack the CJI in media was that important cases are being assigned to junior judges and select benches bypassing senior ones. As The Times of India had noted in a report the discontent over not being assigned important cases that get space in newspapers and TV channels was simmering for a long time even before Misra took over the top post in August last year. Though a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the CJI is the master of the roster and reserves the right to constitute benches the dissenting judges had alleged through a letter to the CJI that the convention of recognising the privilege of the chief justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority legal or factual of the chief justice over his colleagues. It is too well-settled in jurisprudence that the chief justice is only the first among equals nothing more or nothing less. This is where the charges fail the logic test. If the CJI is merely the first among equals and possesses no superior authority legal or factual over his colleagues then where does the question of seniority or junior judges arise? The Supreme Court has 25 seasoned judges on its roster. These are men/women of high competence eminence and experience. No one can walk his or her way into becoming a judge at the apex court without requisite qualifications. If that is so why are the dissenting judges putting up seniority as a benchmark while demanding to adjudicate key cases? A lawyer Lakshminarayanan Venkatachari writes in his column for The Times of India: If every judge is equal to the other then where is the question of seniority? The verdict is that of the Supreme Court not of individual judges. Further Supreme Court is not comprised by judicial greenhorns but by seasoned judges of constitutional courts who have put in a decade or more in the Judiciary. This fallacy has now paved the way for media pressure groups and politicians to raise questions against the competence of the apex court. The Supreme Court has 21 other judges in addition to the four rebel ones. How does it matter who adjudicates over the case? Questioning the constitution of benches is tantamount to raising doubts over the fairness of the verdict and no judicial institution (much less the highest court of the land) may operate under that trust deficit. When we consider media reports that super sensitive cases have been given to junior SC judges for the last 20 years under different CJIs then the bone of contention that led the four judges to take such an unprecedented step makes even less sense. As Dhananjay Mahapatra writes in The Times of India: TOI tracked 15 super sensitive cases of national importance in the last two decades including those relating to Bofors Rajiv Gandhi assassination LK Advani s trial in Babri Masjid demolition Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter Best Bakery and the case that changed how the BCCI is run. All of them have one thing in common they were assigned by the then CJIs not to any of the four senior-most judges of the SC but to select benches headed by junior judges. This not only points to the fact that seniority has never been an entitlement in the apex court it also raises troublesome questions about the motive behind the four judges pressure tactics. Let s revisit the letter. There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the chief justice of this court selectively to the benches of their preferences without any rational basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs they wrote. In voicing their lack of trust in the way CJI constitutes benches or performs administrative functions the dissenting judges have made an implication that the departures from convention have been carried out with a motive to fix the outcomes. This is the most damaging charge against the CJI that not only raises doubts over his integrity but also suggests that their colleagues are amenable to influence. If media reports are to be believed the customary Monday morning meeting among the judges (the first since the public allegations) saw stormy scenes. The Times of India quoted a source in claiming that a junior judge accused the rebels of bringing the institution into disrepute. Why did you go to the press without even informing other judges about the grievance of assigning of cases by the CJI to select benches? By going to the press you wanted to tell the world that only senior judges are competent to handle cases and junior judges are not. You have killed the institution its reputation and maligned every single judge the junior judge reportedly said. The gravity of the charges makes it difficult for an amicable solution to arise. It is difficult to see how there will be a reconciliation between the rebels and other judges when entire reputations are at stake. As Pratap Bhanu Mehta writes in The Indian Express There is no half-way house when it comes to guilt or innocence. The judge s press conference and the artfully evasive letter seem to suggest there is. But now that they have gone public they have to follow through on the seriousness of the charge; otherwise this is just pressure tactics. It is dangerous pressure tactics because one implication will be that any pro-government decision on a bench allotted by the chief justice will now have the imprimatur of doubt over it. The nature of the gambit is such that the dissenting judges must take their dissent to its logical conclusion. Any attempts at papering over the crisis or shutting the eyelids closely and hoping the dust storm will subside won t work.
NEW DELHI: The four senior most Supreme Court judges today virtually revolted against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra who has been a part of several key and sensitive verdicts including that of confirming the death sentence of Mumbai blasts convict Yakub Memon during a midnight hearing. Before being elevated as the 45th CJI attempts were made to stall his elevation but Justice Misra took oath as the head of the judiciary on August 28 last year. Misra who has a 13 month-long tenure till October 2 has been having a tough time in dealing with his colleagues and often reports have surfaced that there have been http://paytmdth.hatenablog.com/  serious disagreements between him and other senior judges of the five-member collegium and Justice J Chelameswar has often made his displeasure public. Not only from within but activist lawyers have also been critical of his functioning which was manifested in a medical college matter when the CJI and advocate Prashant Bhushan had a heated exchange of words in a packed courtroom. CJI Misra had to hurridely constitute a five-judge bench of his choice after a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had ordered setting up of a five-judge bench of senior most judges to hear the petitions by an NGO and a lawyer levelling serious allegations of bribes being taken in the names of judges to get favourable order in a medical college case. The CJI-headed bench had overturned Justice Chelameswar s order and asserted that Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster . The vexatious Ayodhya land title dispute in the Babri Masjid case which is being heard by a bench headed by CJI Misra has also witnessed war of words between Justice Misra and senior lawyers like Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan. Besides these controversies Justice Misra one of the most eloquent judges in the apex court has been part of several key verdicts including the December 16 gangrape and murder case in which four men were sent to gallows. He headed the bench which in an unprecedented pre-dawn hearing in 2015 when the doors of the apex court were opened at 1 AM rejected last-ditch efforts by Memon to get his execution stayed. He is also hearing several crucial issues such as SEBI- Sahara payment row BCCI reforms 1984 anti-Sikh riots matters related to real estate majors. Justice Misra who was elevated to the apex court bench on October 10 2011 from the Delhi High Court where he was the Chief Justice has already presided over several key cases and verdicts. He headed the apex court bench which upheld the constitutional validity of 156-year-old penal laws on defamation holding that the reputation of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other s right of free speech . Justice Misra had also mandated the playing of the national anthem before the screening of films in cinema halls. The order was recently modified and the top court made it optional for cinema halls to play the national anthem before screening of a film. Another significant judgement by Justice Misra was one directing states and union territories to upload FIRs on websites within 24 hours of their registration to enable the accused and others to file appropriate pleas in the courts for redress. Justice Misra who was enrolled as an advocate in 1977 has practised in constitutional civil criminal revenue service and sales tax matters in the Orissa High Court and Tribunals before being elevated to the High Court bench. He was appointed Additional Judge of the Orissa High Court in January 1996 after which he was transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in March 1997. In 2009 Justice Misra became the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and assumed charge as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court in May 2010. He was appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on October 10 2011.
A day after four Supreme Court judges decided to come out in public with complaints against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra the Supreme Court Bar Association on Saturday said that those allegations were not substantial and the press conference was ill-planned .On Friday justices Jasti Chelameswar Ranjan Gogoi Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph the four most senior judges in the country after Misra openly protested against the chief justice bypassing established traditions in court to assign cases to benches. If they had to come for a press conference they should have said something substantial Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh told ANI on Saturday. Just creating doubts in the minds of people will not serve the interest of the judiciary. Singh added that now people will wildly guess about what is happening inside the top judicial body and all kinds of things will be said about the Supreme Court . The Supreme Court Bar Association will now be proactive and make sure that this doubt instilled in the minds of the public is dealt with Singh told News18. He said the matter was avoidable and because of the drama people are very sceptical about the impartiality of the Supreme Court .The association is expected to meet on Saturday evening to discuss the matter and will later hold a press conference. Singh also said that there was no question of impeachment of CJI Misra.The Bar Council of India said holding a press conference on a minor issue of roster is saddening . Its Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said a delegation from the council will meet the rebel judges the chief justice and other senior judges on Sunday and request them to not bring issues like these in front of the public .Holding a PC on a minor issue of roster is saddening. We have a meeting at 5 pm today & tomorrow our delegation will meet those senior judges CJI & other judges & request them to not bring issues like these in front of public: Manan Kumar Mishra Chairman Bar Council of India pic.twitter.com/qrKzR4wgc2 ANI (@ANI) January 13 2018 In a letter that the four judges wrote to Justice Misra which was released to the media on Friday they alleged that the chief justice had violated conventions in his role as the master of the roster. They were referring to Chief Justice Misra s allocation of cases in the Supreme Court which many have questioned most vocally after he moved the Medical Colleges bribery scam from Justice Chelameshwar s court to his own in November 2017.The press conference had evoked mixed reactions from various members of the society.Later in the day Attorney General KK Venugopal had said that the judges should have avoided speaking to the media. The Congress called for a full court to investigate the allegations against Misra amid rumours that the party was considering moving impeachment proceedings against the chief justice. The Bharatiya Janata Party then accused the Congress of politicising the matter.
New Delhi: As the crisis triggered by the revolt of four Supreme Court judges lingered Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the rebel judges may meet on Sunday to resolve the problems raked up by them as two of the dissenting judges on Saturday sought to play down the issue. File image of Supreme Court. AP Three of the four judges who had attacked the chief justice at a press conference here on Friday were away from the capital and are expected to return on Sunday afternoon. There was no official confirmation about reports that Justice Misra will be meeting with the rebel judges. But indications were available that a resolution could be worked out from the remarks made by Justices Kurian Joseph and Ranjan Gogoi and Attorney General KK Venugopal the government s highest law officer. Justice Joseph said in Kochi that there was no constitutional crisis in the apex court and the issues they had raised appeared to have been sorted out. We did this for a cause and I think (the) issues appear to have been sorted out. This was not against anyone nor are we having anything personal. It was meant to see that more transparency is there said Justice Joseph. He however did not elaborate. Justice Joseph said the issues they had raised in an unprecedented press conference on Friday triggered no constitutional crisis. There will be no constitutional crisis and there are only problems in procedures and that will be corrected. He said the judges had written everything in the letter they released on Friday and which they had sent to Justice Misra a couple of months ago. Asked whether he felt that the judges should not have come out in the open with their grievances against the chief justice he said: Any problem everyone can see two sides. Whatever we have to say we have written in the letter. In reply to a question on why they failed to brief the president of the issues he said the president is only the appointing authority. Ranjan Gogoi who was in Kolkata for a meeting of legal services authorities also ruled out any crisis hitting the top court. There is no crisis he said but refused to make any further comments. The attorney general meanwhile expressed the hope that the problems in the top judiciary would be settled by Monday. Unity among Supreme Court judges will return by Monday. We hope the entire issue will be settled in the larger interest of the institution. Judges are persons of wisdom and statesmanship and experience. We hope they won t allow the issue to escalate Venugopal said. Venugopal on Friday had said the judges could have avoided going public with their complaints against Justice Misra. The Bar Council of India (BCI) met in Delhi on Saturday and unanimously decided that a seven-member delegation of the bar would try to meet majority of Supreme Court judges on Sunday in an attempt to persuade them to resolve the issue at the earliest. We are ready to offer our mediation Manan Misra BCI President told the media after the meeting. He said the matter should not be politicised. Meanwhile Prime Minister Narendra Modi s Principal Secretary Nripendra Misra was on Saturday morning seen driving to the residence of the Chief Justice. He was seen sitting inside his official car which returned from the gate of the Chief Justice s residence without entering the premises. The Congress asked Modi to explain why he sent his aide to Justice Misra s residence. As Prime Minister s Principal Secretary Nripendra Misra visits CJI s residence at 5 Krishna Menon Marg. He must answer the reason for sending this special messenger to (the) Chief Justice of India tweeted Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala. The revolt by Justices J Chelameswar Ranjan Gogoi Kurian Joseph and Madan B Lokur surfaced in a press conference in which they accused the chief justice of not strictly adhering to the rules in assigning cases to appropriate benches which they said could create doubts about the integrity of the top court. Senior BJP leader and former minister Yashwant Sinha said on Saturday said it was our bounden duty to take note of what the judges have said and raise our voice for corrective action . Sinha who finds himself at variance with his party s stand and policies said fear stopped people from speaking out. If four senior judges have gone public then how is it a Supreme Court matter? It is a serious matter. If they say anything to the people of the country it is our bounded duty to take note of that.
By: PTI | New Delhi | Published: January 10 2018 7:23 pm Chief Justice of India Justice Dipak Misra (Express Photo by Tashi Tobgyal/Files) Related News Three Supreme Court judges help CJI four dissenters meet but fail to break the ice another round todaySupreme Court crisis: CJI Dipak Misra meets four dissenting judges will talk againMedical Council of India bribery scam: Prashant Bhushan sends transcripts to four rebel plus Justice Sikri says probe CJIChief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra today recused himself from hearing the pleas of Karti Chidambaram son of former Union Minister P Chidambaram and two firms challenging Enforcement Directorate s decision to provisionally attach their properties in connection with a money-laundering probe in the Aircel-Maxis deal case. The CJI who was presiding the bench comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said he as the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court had heard the case pertaining to 2G spectrum allocation and hence would not like to hear the instant petitions. I have heard the 2G case in Delhi High Court the CJI said. The bench said another bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra which is already seized of a similar case would hear the present matters. Senior advocate Anand Grover who was appointed by the apex court as special prosecutor in the 2G cases and was representing the ED told the bench that a similar matter was listed on January 16 before the bench headed by Justice Mishra. Karti and two companies including Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Ltd (ASCPL) have challenged the ED s decision to provisionally attach their assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in connection with alleged proceeds of crime in the Aircel-Maxis deal. The probe agency on September 25 last year had attached assets worth Rs 1.16 crore of Karti and a firm allegedly linked to him in connection with the probe in the Aircel-Maxis deal case. A provisional attachment order signed by Joint Director and investigating officer of the 2G spectrum allocation cases Rajeshwar Singh was issued under the PMLA for attaching the assets. The case pertains to the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) approval granted in 2006 by P Chidambaram with the agency saying it was probing the circumstances of said FIPB approval granted by the then finance minister . The agency had said FIPB approval in the Aircel-Maxis FDI case was granted in March 2006 by the then finance minister even though he was competent to accord approval on project proposals only up to Rs 600 crore and beyond that it required the approval of the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA). In the instant case the approval for FDI of 800 million USD (over Rs 3 500 crore) was sought. Hence CCEA was competent to grant approval. However approval was not obtained from CCEA it had alleged. It had also said a payment of Rs 26 lakh was made by Aircel Televentures Limited to ASCPL the firm allegedly linked to Karti within a few days of the FIPB approval. The agency is probing the Aircel-Maxis deal under the PMLA after taking cognisance of a 2011 CBI FIR in the case. For all the latest India News download Indian Express App More Related News Four judges who criticised CJI Dipak Misra not on Bench that will hear 7 key matters Supreme Court crisis: Back to work but not back to business as usual Tags: 2G spectrum case Aircel Maxis deal Dipak Misra No Comments.
Members of the legal fraternity on Friday dubbed the apprehensions of four senior judges about the Supreme Court s functioning a major concern with one claiming that the issue may just be the tip of the iceberg . In an unprecedented event in Indian judiciary s history four senior sitting judges of the Supreme Court on Friday met the media to allege that the apex court s administration was not in order . Justices J. Chelameshwar Ranjan Gogoi Kurien Joseph and Madan B. Lokur expressed concern about the need to protect the institution of the judiciary and said that for the survival of democracy impartial justices are needed . Senior Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said he had not seen such blatant abuse of power during his legal career. I have not seen such blatant abuse of power (in exercise of assigning cases by the Chief Justice of India) as in the case of the present Chief Justice... if he has any self respect he would resign. Because for the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court it clearly expresses public loss of confidence or lack of confidence Bhushan told a TV channel. Speaking of late CBI Judge Brijgopal Loya s case -- whose death was said to have occured under mysterious circumstances -- the noted lawyer said it should have been listed before senior SC judges in view of the importance of the case but instead was listed in Court Number 10 which is of Justice Arun Mishra... Most cases have been sent to the bench of Justice Arun Mishra . Terming the situation alarming senior Supreme Court lawyer Indira Jaisingh said Loya s case may be the tipping point which forced the four Judges to address the issue publicly. Maybe Loya s case was the tipping point... this may just be the tip of the iceberg she told reporters. She asserted however that the judges should not be termed anti-CJI and it is important for the judiciary to survive . Remember the (Indian) judiciary is the only institution which can protect us from the excesses of the Executive and the Legislature... we all want the judiciary to survive she said. Former Delhi High Court Judge Mukul Mudgal vouched for the integrity of the four judges terming them really responsible and respected judges and said there must have been compelling reasons for them to come out in the open. No doubt the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster but there are systems and precedents and conventions that have to be followed in a constitutional manner... Historically the cases of constitutional importance are assigned to the most senior Judges. There have been departures from it and I think this is the reason which must have compelled them Mudgal told a TV channel. Supreme Court Senior Advocate K.T.S. Tulsi termed the event unprecedented and shocking and said the judges would not have approached the media unless having exhausted all options . One could see the pain on their faces while they were speaking (to the media) he said. Congress leader and advocate Salman Khurshid said it is the Chief Jistice s responsibility to set things right as the greatest (of the judges) and head of the institution .
Anuj Loya son of Special Central Bureau of Investigation Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya who ostensibly had a heart attack during a trip to attend a wedding in 2014 said that he and his family had no suspicions about the circumstance of his father s death.This runs contrarary to sentiments Anuj Loya had expressed in February 2015 when he wrote a letter raising doubts about whether his father had died a natural death. At the time of his death on on December 1 2014 Justice Loya was presiding over a special CBI court in Mumbai hearing the case of the alleged extrajudicial murder by the Gujarat Police of alleged extortionist Sohrabuddin Sheikh. Among the accused in the case was Bharatiya Janata Party President Amit Shah who was the home minister of Gujarat when the alleged fake encounter took place. Family expresses doubtsThe judge s death has been heatedly discussed since November 2017 when Anuj Loya s grandfather Harkishan Loya and paternal aunt Anuradha Biyani had in video statements published by Caravan magazine expressed doubts about the circumstances of Judge Loya s sudden death in Nagpur in December 2014. Biyani also alleged that Judge Loya had told her that he had been offered a bribe of Rs 100 crore by Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Mohit Shah. On January 4 the Bombay Lawyers Association filed a petition with the Bombay High Court asking for an investigation into the death. A week later a Mumbai-based journalist BR Lone filed a separate but similar public interest litigation in the Supreme Court as did Congress leader Tehseen Poonawala. On Friday Loya s death was in the headlines again as the Supreme Court s four most senior judges after the Chief Justice of India held an unprecedented press conference at which they said democracy was in danger because of the actions of CJI Dipak Misra who was bypassing established conventions in the way cases were assigned to benches. The four judges confirmed that they had brought up the hearing of the Loya case with Misra shortly before they addressed the media. The Loya case had been assigned that morning to the bench of Justice Arun Kumar Misra. Very troubled Amidst this renewed interest in the case 21-year-old Anuj Loya called a surprise press conference in Mumbai on Sunday at which he said that his family was getting very troubled because of the media reports. Humko koyi allegations nahi hai kisi pe bhi kuch bhi nahi hai he said. We don t have any allegations against anyone or about anything. We are really pained. We are already trying to get out of these things. I request you people please don t try to harass us or trouble us. Convey this message to everyone through your media. He explained why he had changed his mind about the circumstances of his father s death. I was 17 at that time so I don t know he said. I was in emotional turmoil and right now I am in emotional turmoil. He added that any doubts other members of his family might have had about Judge Loya s death were also due to emotional turmoil at that time and that these doubts have since been cleared.Loya s family friend and retired district judge KB Katkar who also addressed the media expanded on this. The only earning member of the family died all of sudden due to a heart attack therefore some suspicion was created by some people Katkar said. However now everything is clear. Two judges senior most judges district judges cadre judges were with Mr Loya when he sustained pain in the chest. He was taken to the hospital in the night time and doctors have made every effort. Good treatment was provided to him however he could not survive. The family members realised all these things however some other people have created some doubt in the story and are harassing the family of Mr Loya. Katkar said that those harassing the family included some NGOs some lawyers politicians . He asked the media to inform these groups not to disturb Loya s family any more.In December Scroll.in tracked the hours before and after Judge Loya s death. Questions however still remain.
NEW DELHI: It is the Supreme Court s New Year s gift for budding lawyers. Chief Justice Dipak Misra on Thursday allowed young lawyers to appear in his court to seek urgent hearing of cases a practice that ended last September when the country s top judge banned senior advocates from jumping the queue.The Chief Justice had then ruled that only Advocates on Record could queue up every morning when his court assembles to https://www.behance.net/shopozoind5eca list urgent cases for out of turn hearing. The idea then was to ensure that senior advocates do not exhaust the time set apart by the court to listen to requests for urgent hearings.But it left out the junior advocates not yet entitled to appear for the court exam that earns them the privilege of being an Advocate on Record. A lawyer needs a minimum of four years experience and should have worked for another year under the guidance of an Advocate on Record to be entitled to write the examWhen the court assembled after the winter vacation on Thursday Chief Justice Misra announced the change. Junior lawyers can also mention the top judge said adding that the younger lawyers should also learn how to mention cases before the court.The practice of lawyers requesting an urgent hearing is referred to as mentioning a case. CommentsClose X During the tenure of the Justice SH Kapadia as then Chief Justice of India this out-of-turn hearing was completely abolished.Later Justice RM Lodha during his period as Chief Justice of CJI stopped senior advocates seeking out-of-turn urgent hearings.