SC DISMISSES PETITION INTO JUDGES BRIBERY CASE
The SC dismissed the petition filed by senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal seeking a SIT probe in the medical college bribery case as an effort to “ create ripples” with the apex court by throwing serious allegations at CJI of India.
After the petition was mentioned before a two-judge bench, The CJI set up a constitutional bench to commence an urgent hearing about who had the authority to direct the setting up of a bench of specific judges to hear a matter.
PETITION BEHIND THE CONTROVERSY
A petition filed by senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal had claimed that the allegations of bribery were leveled for securing a settlement of cases relating to medical colleges in which a retired Orissa High Court judge, Ishrat Masroor Quddusi, is also an accused.
The case, which the Central Bureau of Investigation is looking into, involves allegations that former members of the higher judiciary took bribery to manipulate court orders in favour of medical colleges that had failed to get official registrations.
Controversy arose from the FIR registered by the CBI against various persons including Orissa HC judge Ishrat Masroor Quddisi, for an alleged conspiracy to secure a favorable judgement from the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India for a private Lucknow medical college.
PROCEEDINGS
Jaiswal's petition was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing.
After that, the order was passed by a two-judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar to set up a larger bench to hear a plea for a SIT probe into graft allegations involving a retired Orissa HC judge.
The order passed by Justice Chelameswar’s Bench to refer the petition to five top judges had created a storm.
OUTCOME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH
Dismissing the petition saying there was no FIR against any judge the three judge-bench termed the petition ‘contempt’ and an attempt to ‘forum shopping’.
The apex court maintained the allegations leveled against CJI were ‘derogatory’ and ‘contemptuous’ but desisted from initiating contempt proceedings.
DEFINING CJI’s POWER
A constitution bench headed by CJI, Dipak Mishra asserted his authority as “the master of the roster” and effectively overturned the order passed by Justice Chelameswar’s Bench
The bench consisting Justice RK Agarwal, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice AM Khanwilkar said that the CJI alone can assign cases to different benches and decide the composition of benches.
CJI is the master of the roster. Neither a two-judge bench nor a three-judge bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition of the constitution of a bench.
The Constitution bench cited its 1998 judgement that held that the CJI of HC was the master of the court roster and said that it applied to the top court as well.
There cannot be any direction to the CJI as to who shall be sitting on the bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the bench touches the composition of the bench.
The SC dismissed the petition filed by senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal seeking a SIT probe in the medical college bribery case as an effort to “ create ripples” with the apex court by throwing serious allegations at CJI of India.
After the petition was mentioned before a two-judge bench, The CJI set up a constitutional bench to commence an urgent hearing about who had the authority to direct the setting up of a bench of specific judges to hear a matter.
PETITION BEHIND THE CONTROVERSY
A petition filed by senior lawyer Kamini Jaiswal had claimed that the allegations of bribery were leveled for securing a settlement of cases relating to medical colleges in which a retired Orissa High Court judge, Ishrat Masroor Quddusi, is also an accused.
The case, which the Central Bureau of Investigation is looking into, involves allegations that former members of the higher judiciary took bribery to manipulate court orders in favour of medical colleges that had failed to get official registrations.
Controversy arose from the FIR registered by the CBI against various persons including Orissa HC judge Ishrat Masroor Quddisi, for an alleged conspiracy to secure a favorable judgement from the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India for a private Lucknow medical college.
PROCEEDINGS
Jaiswal's petition was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing.
After that, the order was passed by a two-judge bench headed by Justice J Chelameswar to set up a larger bench to hear a plea for a SIT probe into graft allegations involving a retired Orissa HC judge.
The order passed by Justice Chelameswar’s Bench to refer the petition to five top judges had created a storm.
OUTCOME OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH
Dismissing the petition saying there was no FIR against any judge the three judge-bench termed the petition ‘contempt’ and an attempt to ‘forum shopping’.
The apex court maintained the allegations leveled against CJI were ‘derogatory’ and ‘contemptuous’ but desisted from initiating contempt proceedings.
DEFINING CJI’s POWER
A constitution bench headed by CJI, Dipak Mishra asserted his authority as “the master of the roster” and effectively overturned the order passed by Justice Chelameswar’s Bench
The bench consisting Justice RK Agarwal, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice AM Khanwilkar said that the CJI alone can assign cases to different benches and decide the composition of benches.
CJI is the master of the roster. Neither a two-judge bench nor a three-judge bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition of the constitution of a bench.
The Constitution bench cited its 1998 judgement that held that the CJI of HC was the master of the court roster and said that it applied to the top court as well.
There cannot be any direction to the CJI as to who shall be sitting on the bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the bench touches the composition of the bench.
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.