Connect with us

India

SC rejects plea for SIT probe, says image of top court damaged

Published

on

SC

New Delhi, Nov 14: The Supreme Court on Tuesday junked a petition, terming it as “scandalous”, for seeking an SIT probe into the allegations of graft involving a retired Orissa High Court judge and observed that the whole controversy has damaged the image of the top judiciary and created doubts about its integrity.

“Unnecessary doubts about the integrity of the institution have been created,” the bench of R.K. Agrawal, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar observed, as it deprecated the petition by lawyer Kamini Jaiswal.

Observing that nobody, including the judges of the top court, were above law, Justice Mishra pronouncing the judgment also said ‘No’ to contempt against the lawyers – Prashant Bhushan and Jaiswal – with a hope that “all will unitedly work for the welfare of the institution (top court)”.

Saying that “none of us” in the higher echelons was above law, the court said, “It is the duty of both the Bar and the Bench, to protect the dignity of the entire judicial system”.

“We find that filing of such petitions and the zest with which it is pursued, has brought the entire system in the last few days to unrest. An effort was made to create ripples in this court; serious and unwanted shadow of doubt has been created for no good reason whatsoever by way of filing the petition which was wholly scandalous and ought not to have been filed in such a method and manner. It is against the settled proposition of law,” said Justice Mishra speaking for the bench.

In case “majesty of our judicial system” has to survive, the court said that such kind of petitions should not have been preferred that too against the settled proposition of law laid down by this court.

Regretting that “unnecessary” aspersions were cast without proper verification of the facts, the court took a dim view of the plea for recusal of Justice Khanwilkar from the bench on the grounds that he along with Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had heard the matter relating to a Lucknow-based private medical college linked to the admission scam.

Saying that it was “far fetched and too tenuous” that any judge of this court, much less Justice Khanwilkar, has any interest in the subject matter before them, the court said: “There is no room for reasonable suspicion even in remote, and the argument is simply too derogatory to be made, probably that has been made anyhow, for somehow to protect the case and to bring disrepute to this court.”

“We cannot fall prey to such unscrupulous devices adopted by the litigants, so as to choose the benches, as that is a real threat to the very existence of the system itself and it would be denigrated in case we succumb to such pressure tactics,” the judgment said.

Pointing to the scenarios created by two petitions as “disturbing”, which has “unnecessarily brought into disrepute” the entire judiciary for “no good cause whatsoever”, the court said: “It passes comprehension, how it was that the petitioner presumed, that there is an FIR lodged against any public functionary.”

Referring to averment that FIR was against the highest judicial functionaries, the court said, “We do not find reflection of any name of the Judge of this Court in the FIR.”

Recalling its earlier judgment, the court said, “There is no question of registering any FIR against any sitting Judge of the High Court or of this Court as it is not permissible as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench.”

IANS

India

SC reserves verdict on plea for larger bench to hear Babri Ayodhya title suit

Published

on

Babri Demolition

New Delhi, July 20 : The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its order on a plea by Muslim litigants seeking that the hearing on the batch of petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict directing the splitting of the disputed site at Ayodhya be heard by a larger bench.

The bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer reserved the verdict on the conclusion of arguments by senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan seeking the reconsideration of the part of 1994 top court judgment which said that a mosque was not essential to Islam for offering Namaz.

Dhavan appeared for the lead petitioner M. Siddiqui represented by his legal heir.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by its September 30, 2010 verdict had ordered that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts — one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara — a Hindu sect and an original litigant in the case and third for the Muslims.

At the outset of the hearing in the apex court on Friday, the court witnessed commotion as some lawyers objected to Dhavan’s use of term Hindu Taliban and comparing the razing of Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 to that of destruction of Buddha statues in Afghanistan’s Bamiyan by the Taliban.

Refusing to budge from his description of Hindu Taliban, Dhavan said that he stood by every word and destruction of Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 was an act of terrorism.

As senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan appearing for one the Hindu litigants described arguments as “mockery”, Dhavan said: “It is an argument based on the destruction of the mosque.”

Dhavan said that the former Chief Justice, the late J.S.Verma had said that Hindus must wear the cross for the destruction of the Babri Mosque.

At this, reminding Dhavan that it was incumbent upon senior lawyers to maintain “decorum” in the court, the Chief Justice described as “inappropriate” the words used by the senior lawyer.

Taking exception to the “inappropriate adjectives” used by Dhavan, he said that “adjectives” that are used in the course of the arguments should be the ones that have the acceptance of the court.

“You may think what you may, but the court thinks it was completely inappropriate,” Chief Justice Misra said as Dhavan insisted that he did not think that the description of Hindu Taliban was inappropriate.

Dhavan said that he could differ with the bench and that will not amount to contempt.

The Chief Justice meanwhile one of the lawyers to leave the court room after he said that “thousands of temple were destroyed and you still call us Hindu Taliban”.

Things came to such a pass, that a lawyer complained that court has become a sort of parliament.

Continue Reading

India

Delhi Air hostess suicide: Court rejects husband’s bail plea

Published

on

Saket Court

New Delhi, July 20: The Saket court on Friday rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by the parents of Mayank Singhvi, the husband of the air hostess who allegedly committed suicide last week in Panchsheel Park. 

Singhvi is currently under 14-day judicial custody.

On Thursday, a friend of the hostess had said that Singhvi was responsible for the victim’s “extreme step”.

“I had received a message from her (air hostess) where she talked of killing herself saying her husband has driven her to this stage. She was a very strong girl. I can’t believe that she took this step,” the friend told ANI.

Before committing suicide, the air hostess had sent a message to her friend on WhatsApp, saying that she had been locked up in a room by Singhvi.

Singhvi was arrested on July 16 and the subsequently sent him to a 14-day judicial custody.

According to the police, the deceased air hostess had a fight with her husband around 4:30 pm on July 13, after which she went to the terrace and jumped off.

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Romil Baniya, said a full-fledged probe has been initiated in connection with the case under Hauz Khas Police Station limits.

WeForNews 

Continue Reading

India

SC collegium reiterates recommendation on Justice Joseph’s elevation

Published

on

Justice-KM-Joseph
K M Joseph (File Photo)

New Delhi, July 20: The Supreme Court collegium has reiterated its recommendation to elevate Justice K.M. Joseph, the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, to the Supreme Court.

The top court collegium reiterated its January 10 recommendation at its meeting on July 16, according to the decision that was uploaded on the top court’s website on Friday.

Reiterating its recommendation, the collegium noted that there was nothing adverse regarding suitability of Justice Joseph in the two communications sent by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad while returning the recommendation for reconsideration.

Recommending Justice Joseph’s elevation to top court, the collegium had on January 10 said: “The collegium considers that at present Justice K.M. Joseph is more deserving and suitable in all respects than other Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts for being appointed as Judges of the Supreme Court.”

However, the Centre had invoked the principle of seniority saying that Justice Joseph stood at number 42 of the seniority of the High Court judges and there were 11 Chief Justices of various High Courts senior to him – a clear suggestion that any elevation of Justice Joseph to top court would be at their expense.

Besides this, the Centre had said that Kerala High Court being comparatively a small court with a sanctioned strength of 42 judges was a parent high court for Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justices of three High Courts — Justice K.M. Joseph himself (Uttarakhand), Justice T.B. Radhakrishnan (Chhattisgarh) and Justice Antony Dominic (Kerala).

However, the top court collegium by its July 16 decision said: “We have carefully considered the observations made by the Law Minister in his letters dated April 26 and April 30 addressed to the Chief Justice of India referring back, for reconsideration, the recommendation made by us on January 10 for appointment of Justice K.M. Joseph, Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court, as Judge of the Supreme Court.

“The Collegium, on due consideration of all the aspects mentioned in the aforesaid two letters, resolves to reiterate the afore-mentioned recommendation, especially since nothing adverse regarding suitability of Mr. Justice K.M. Koseph has been pointed out in the aforesaid letters.”

IANS

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Most Popular