The chairman of the Bar Council of India said Sunday evening that a delegation from the council met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in a &quot;congenial atmosphere&quot; and that &quot;everything will be sorted out&quot;.&nbsp;

Manan Kumar Mishra added that &quot;everyone we talked to has assured that (the) matter will be sorted out.&quot;&nbsp;

The BCI delegation met with CJI Misra at his residence for 50 minutes.&nbsp;

Manan Mishra said the delegation also met with Justices J Chelameshwar, MB Lokur, and Kurian Joseph. He added that all of them gave their assurance that everything would be sorted out.

Manan Mishra said that the BCI&#39;s role is &quot;very limited&quot; and that it was the judges who assured them that there would be no problem at all. He added that the Bar Council would hold a press conference Monday to apprise the media and the public of their meetings with the Chief Justice and the other Supreme Court justices.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-internal-matter-will-be-resolved-soon-says-bar-councilof-india-29484" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" target="_blank">&#39;Internal matter, will be resolved soon,&#39; says Bar Council of India</a>

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488" target="_blank">4 retired judges write open letter to CJI</a>

There had been hectic parlaying through the day&nbsp;to try and resolve the crisis.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh also met with CJI Misra and handed over a resolution from the association to him. The resolution, passed Saturday, had asked for a full court discussion to try and resolve the ongoing crisis.&nbsp;

The Delhi Bar Association had earlier in the day <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-crisis-will-take-to-streets-if-matter-remains-unresolved-delhi-bar-association-threatens-29496" target="_blank">threatened to take to the streets</a> should the crisis not be resolved within seven to 10 days.&nbsp;

Supreme Court Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph -- the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court after Chief Justice Misra -- had in an unprecedented move called a press conference on Friday at which they raised a litany of problems, including the assigning of cases, allegedly afflicting the country&#39;s highest court.&nbsp;

The judges said they had met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra earlier but had failed to get their point across, which is why they were taking recourse to the press conference.&nbsp;

They also released a letter written by them to the CJI.&nbsp;

The judges however did not mention any specifics when questioned by reporters.&nbsp;

Their press conference however, considering that it was unprecedented -- nothing of the sort has ever happened before -- has been called a &quot;virtual revolt&quot;.&nbsp;

On Sunday, PTI reported sources as saying two Supreme Court judges -- Justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao -- also met Justice J Chelameswar, who had led the four judges in their press conference.

The BCI panel also had a brief meeting on Sunday with Justice Arun Mishra, who has been in the focus for hearing PILs seeking a probe into the death of special <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-loyas-death-had-suspicion-earlier-over-fathers-death-but-now-it-is-over-says-son-29495" target="_blank">CBI judge BH Loya</a>.

Loya, who was dealing with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had died of cardiac arrest three years ago.

The four judges had questioned the allocation of Loya&#39;s case to Justice Mishra, bypassing senior judges.

(With inputs from PTI)

&nbsp;

Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra added that 'everyone we talked to has assured that (the) matter will be sorted out'

The chairman of the Bar Council of India said Sunday evening that a delegation from the council met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in a "congenial atmosphere" and that "everything will be sorted out". Manan Kumar Mishra added that "everyone we talked to has assured that (the) matter will be sorted out." The BCI delegation met with CJI Misra at his residence for 50 minutes. Manan Mishra said the delegation also met with Justices J Chelameshwar, MB Lokur, and Kurian Joseph. He added that all of them gave their assurance that everything would be sorted out. Manan Mishra said that the BCI's role is "very limited" and that it was the judges who assured them that there would be no problem at all. He added that the Bar Council would hold a press conference Monday to apprise the media and the public of their meetings with the Chief Justice and the other Supreme Court justices. Also read: 'Internal matter, will be resolved soon,' says Bar Council of India Also read: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI There had been hectic parlaying through the day to try and resolve the crisis. The Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh also met with CJI Misra and handed over a resolution from the association to him. The resolution, passed Saturday, had asked for a full court discussion to try and resolve the ongoing crisis. The Delhi Bar Association had earlier in the day threatened to take to the streets should the crisis not be resolved within seven to 10 days. Supreme Court Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph -- the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court after Chief Justice Misra -- had in an unprecedented move called a press conference on Friday at which they raised a litany of problems, including the assigning of cases, allegedly afflicting the country's highest court. The judges said they had met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra earlier but had failed to get their point across, which is why they were taking recourse to the press conference. They also released a letter written by them to the CJI. The judges however did not mention any specifics when questioned by reporters. Their press conference however, considering that it was unprecedented -- nothing of the sort has ever happened before -- has been called a "virtual revolt". On Sunday, PTI reported sources as saying two Supreme Court judges -- Justices SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao -- also met Justice J Chelameswar, who had led the four judges in their press conference. The BCI panel also had a brief meeting on Sunday with Justice Arun Mishra, who has been in the focus for hearing PILs seeking a probe into the death of special CBI judge BH Loya. Loya, who was dealing with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had died of cardiac arrest three years ago. The four judges had questioned the allocation of Loya's case to Justice Mishra, bypassing senior judges. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court crisis: 'Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,' says Bar Council 

The Bar Council, which met with Justice Chelameswar on Sunday, said the ongoing Supreme Court crisis is an &quot;internal matter which will be resolved soon.&quot;

&quot;We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days,&quot; Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra said after meeting with Justice Chelameswar.&nbsp;

In an unprecedented move, the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court (after the Chief Justice of India) had called a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">press conference</a> on Friday.&nbsp;

The four judges -- Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- raised a litany of problems, including the assigning of cases, allegedly afflicting the country&#39;s highest court.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324" target="_blank">Let the nation decide on CJI&#39;s impeachment, SC judges say in press conference</a>

The judges said they had met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra but had failed to get their point across, which is why they were taking recourse to the press conference.&nbsp;

They also released a letter written by them to the CJI.&nbsp;

The judges however did not mention any specifics when questioned by reporters.&nbsp;

Their press conference however, considering that it is unprecedented -- nothing of the sort has ever happened before -- has been called a &quot;virtual revolt&quot;.&nbsp;

Two of the four judges however have backed down since their press conference.&nbsp;

On Saturday, Justice Ranjan Gogoi said &quot;there is no crisis&quot; in the Supreme Court. And before that, Justice Lokur had said there was no need for outside intervention.&nbsp;

The Bar Council will be meeting all the other judges of the Supreme Court through the day, and has been conducting what has been described as &quot;hectic parlaying&quot;, to try and resolve the crisis.&nbsp;

It is expected to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-row-chief-justice-of-india-to-meet-rebel-judges-today-29457" target="_blank">meet Chief Justice Misra</a> at about 7.30 pm today.&nbsp;

The Bar Council made the statement after meeting with Justice Chelameswar, one of the four judges to have called an unprecedented press conference on Friday

The Bar Council, which met with Justice Chelameswar on Sunday, said the ongoing Supreme Court crisis is an "internal matter which will be resolved soon." "We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days," Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra said after meeting with Justice Chelameswar. In an unprecedented move, the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court (after the Chief Justice of India) had called a press conference on Friday. The four judges -- Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- raised a litany of problems, including the assigning of cases, allegedly afflicting the country's highest court. Also read: Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment, SC judges say in press conference The judges said they had met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra but had failed to get their point across, which is why they were taking recourse to the press conference. They also released a letter written by them to the CJI. The judges however did not mention any specifics when questioned by reporters. Their press conference however, considering that it is unprecedented -- nothing of the sort has ever happened before -- has been called a "virtual revolt". Two of the four judges however have backed down since their press conference. On Saturday, Justice Ranjan Gogoi said "there is no crisis" in the Supreme Court. And before that, Justice Lokur had said there was no need for outside intervention. The Bar Council will be meeting all the other judges of the Supreme Court through the day, and has been conducting what has been described as "hectic parlaying", to try and resolve the crisis. It is expected to meet Chief Justice Misra at about 7.30 pm today.

Supreme Court crisis: 'Internal matter, will be resolved soon,' says Bar Council of India

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad asked the judiciary Sunday why it did not trust the prime minister, to which Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra replied that the judiciary trusts the prime minister as much as the public does.&nbsp;

The exchange took place at a celebration to mark National Law Day in Delhi.&nbsp;

The law minister was quoted in news reports as saying that the public trusted the prime minister. That the PM possessed the nuclear button -- that&#39;s how much the people of India trusted him.

And that the prime minister could do so much work through his ministers, and yet the PM through his law minister cannot be trusted to have a fair judge appointed.&nbsp;

The chief justice of India replied that the &quot;prime minister is the repository of constitution trust&quot;. And that the judiciary trusts him as much as the public does.&nbsp;

This latest tussle between the government and the judiciary goes back to the issue of who should be in the NJAC, which appoints judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Under Article 124A of the Constitution, the law minister used to be an ex-officio member of the commission and the prime minister was part of the three-member panel which nominated the two eminent persons to the NJAC.

But Article 124A was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.&nbsp;

Former Chief Justice of India JS&nbsp;Khehar, who authored the majority judgment in the NJAC case in October 2015, was present at the celebration. As was Prime Minister Modi.&nbsp;

Modi called for balance between the legislature, judiciary, and the executive and said the three needed to work together to fulfil people&#39;s wishes while remaining within&nbsp;their limits.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra replied that the judiciary trusts the prime minister as much as the public does

Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad asked the judiciary Sunday why it did not trust the prime minister, to which Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra replied that the judiciary trusts the prime minister as much as the public does. The exchange took place at a celebration to mark National Law Day in Delhi. The law minister was quoted in news reports as saying that the public trusted the prime minister. That the PM possessed the nuclear button -- that's how much the people of India trusted him. And that the prime minister could do so much work through his ministers, and yet the PM through his law minister cannot be trusted to have a fair judge appointed. The chief justice of India replied that the "prime minister is the repository of constitution trust". And that the judiciary trusts him as much as the public does. This latest tussle between the government and the judiciary goes back to the issue of who should be in the NJAC, which appoints judges to the high courts and the Supreme Court. Under Article 124A of the Constitution, the law minister used to be an ex-officio member of the commission and the prime minister was part of the three-member panel which nominated the two eminent persons to the NJAC. But Article 124A was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. Former Chief Justice of India JS Khehar, who authored the majority judgment in the NJAC case in October 2015, was present at the celebration. As was Prime Minister Modi. Modi called for balance between the legislature, judiciary, and the executive and said the three needed to work together to fulfil people's wishes while remaining within their limits.

Why don't you trust PM, law minister asks judges

The decisions of the Supreme Court collegium -- the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and high courts -- will for the first time be made public.&nbsp;

The collegium had come under intense criticism after Justice Jayant M Patel of the Karnataka high court was transferred to the Allahabad high court. Justice Patel, who had ordered a CBI investigation into the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, had been expected to take over as chief justice of a high court. Justice Patel had resigned after his transfer orders came through.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has now given into the pressure, saying on Friday that the decisions of the collegium will now be made public -- they will be published on the Supreme Court&#39;s website -- to ensure transparency in the appointment and transfer of judges.&nbsp;

This is a first. It has never happened before.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/untitled%20design%20(23)-20171006125223.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The collegium&#39;s decisions will be published on the Supreme Court&#39;s website. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Friday&#39;s resolution, passed by the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court -- Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice R Gogoi, Justice M Lokur, and Justice K Joseph -- stated: &nbsp;

&ldquo;That the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the material which is considered by the Collegium is different. The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system.&rdquo;

In March this year, the collegium -- headed then by the former CJI -- had turned down the central government&#39;s suggested clauses on the appointment of judges.&nbsp;

For decades the centre and the Supreme Court have been unable to come to terms on the Memorandum of Procedure, a crucial document that would cover the appointment and transfer of judges.&nbsp;

CJI Dipak Mishra has in the past slammed allegations of judges being pro-government and of external influences on appointments.

Now, with this latest move, the Supreme Court has sent out the message that the collegium has nothing to hide from its citizens.&nbsp;

The collegium, a body of SC judges, decides on the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and the high courts of India

The decisions of the Supreme Court collegium -- the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and high courts -- will for the first time be made public. The collegium had come under intense criticism after Justice Jayant M Patel of the Karnataka high court was transferred to the Allahabad high court. Justice Patel, who had ordered a CBI investigation into the Ishrat Jahan encounter case, had been expected to take over as chief justice of a high court. Justice Patel had resigned after his transfer orders came through. The Supreme Court has now given into the pressure, saying on Friday that the decisions of the collegium will now be made public -- they will be published on the Supreme Court's website -- to ensure transparency in the appointment and transfer of judges. This is a first. It has never happened before. The collegium's decisions will be published on the Supreme Court's website. (Reuters) × Friday's resolution, passed by the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court -- Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice R Gogoi, Justice M Lokur, and Justice K Joseph -- stated: “That the decisions henceforth taken by the Collegium indicating the reasons shall be put on the website of the Supreme Court, when the recommendation(s) is/are sent to the Government of India, with regard to the cases relating to initial elevation to the High Court Bench, confirmation as permanent Judge(s) of the High Court, elevation to the post of Chief Justice of High Court, transfer of High Court Chief Justices / Judges and elevation to the Supreme Court, because on each occasion the material which is considered by the Collegium is different. The Resolution is passed to ensure transparency and yet maintain confidentiality in the Collegium system.” In March this year, the collegium -- headed then by the former CJI -- had turned down the central government's suggested clauses on the appointment of judges. For decades the centre and the Supreme Court have been unable to come to terms on the Memorandum of Procedure, a crucial document that would cover the appointment and transfer of judges. CJI Dipak Mishra has in the past slammed allegations of judges being pro-government and of external influences on appointments. Now, with this latest move, the Supreme Court has sent out the message that the collegium has nothing to hide from its citizens.

In first, Supreme Court collegium to make decisions public

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court voiced its concerns over social media Thursday.&nbsp;

The bench was hearing arguments on whether a public servant or a minister can claim freedom of speech to air his or her views on a sensitive matter under investigation.

PTI reported the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud, as saying people disseminated incorrect information on social media -- even about court proceedings.&nbsp;

PTI reported senior advocate Fali S Nariman, amicus curiae to the bench, as agreeing with it.&nbsp;

Nariman said he had stopped looking at social media.&nbsp;

&quot;I have deleted my Twitter account,&quot; PTI reported senior advocate Harish Salve as saying.&nbsp;

PTI reported Salve as saying that he had once appeared in a case related to a medical college and that what subsequently appeared on his Twitter feed had forced him to delete his account.&nbsp;

PTI reported Salve as adding that &quot;now private players were more into infringing the privacy rights and such things are no more restricted to the state only.&quot; 
&nbsp;

A three-judge bench which included the Chief Justice of India said people disseminated incorrect information on social media -- even about court proceedings

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court voiced its concerns over social media Thursday. The bench was hearing arguments on whether a public servant or a minister can claim freedom of speech to air his or her views on a sensitive matter under investigation. PTI reported the bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar, and DY Chandrachud, as saying people disseminated incorrect information on social media -- even about court proceedings. PTI reported senior advocate Fali S Nariman, amicus curiae to the bench, as agreeing with it. Nariman said he had stopped looking at social media. "I have deleted my Twitter account," PTI reported senior advocate Harish Salve as saying. PTI reported Salve as saying that he had once appeared in a case related to a medical college and that what subsequently appeared on his Twitter feed had forced him to delete his account. PTI reported Salve as adding that "now private players were more into infringing the privacy rights and such things are no more restricted to the state only."

Supreme Court voices concern over social media

Uncharitable comments, trolls and aggressive reactions on social media platforms on almost every issue, including judges and judicial proceedings, today came under the scanner of the Supreme Court which expressed concern over it and agreed that regulating them was necessary.

The apex court also disapproved and expressed anguish over a statement made by a senior advocate and former Supreme Court Bar Association President that most of the judges are pro-government.

&quot;They should sit in the Supreme Court to see how the government is hauled up,&quot; a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud observed.

The concern of the bench found strong support from two eminent lawyers, Fali S Nariman and Harish Salve, who are assisting the apex court in a matter relating to the comment made by former UP Minister Azam Khan in a highway gangrape case.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>&quot;Earlier the right to privacy could have been infringed by the state only. Now such things emanate from private parties also,&quot; the Supreme Court said</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Earlier the right to privacy could have been infringed by the state only. Now such things emanate from private parties also, the Supreme Court said" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

&quot;I have deleted my Twitter account. It was so abusive,&quot; Salve said, adding that once when he was appearing in a case relating to a Christian medical college and the subsequent happenings on his Twitter handle forced him to delete it.

&quot;I have stopped looking at them,&quot; Nariman said, adding that unwarranted comments about almost everything can be found on these platforms.

The bench then said that one of the observations made during the hearing on the Rohingya matters was projected as if an order was delivered and it became a subject matter of debate.

Anything that disrupts free exchange of views between the judges and the arguing lawyers needs to be curbed, Salve said.

The bench also said that there was misuse of social media platforms and people disseminated wrong information even about the court proceedings.

&quot;Earlier the right to privacy could have been infringed by the state only. Now such things emanate from private parties also,&quot; the bench said.

Pointing out that a newspaper or a media organisation which gets an audio clip, publishes it without taking any responsibility of its authenticity, Salve asked: &quot;does it not amount to infringement of privacy&quot;.

The concept of &quot;my house is my castle&quot; is fast fading due to the intrusion of private players, the bench said.

Nariman then said the Indian civil laws were &quot;defective&quot; and unable to handle such incidents.

&quot;There was an urgent need to have some kind of regulation,&quot; Salve said. The bench agreed to the suggestion.

Meanwhile, the top court today referred to a constitution bench questions like whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while airing views in a sensitive matter which is under investigation.&nbsp;

The court did not pass an order saying social media was to be regulated -- it expressed concern over it, and agreed that regulating it was necessary

Uncharitable comments, trolls and aggressive reactions on social media platforms on almost every issue, including judges and judicial proceedings, today came under the scanner of the Supreme Court which expressed concern over it and agreed that regulating them was necessary. The apex court also disapproved and expressed anguish over a statement made by a senior advocate and former Supreme Court Bar Association President that most of the judges are pro-government. "They should sit in the Supreme Court to see how the government is hauled up," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud observed. The concern of the bench found strong support from two eminent lawyers, Fali S Nariman and Harish Salve, who are assisting the apex court in a matter relating to the comment made by former UP Minister Azam Khan in a highway gangrape case. "Earlier the right to privacy could have been infringed by the state only. Now such things emanate from private parties also," the Supreme Court said × "I have deleted my Twitter account. It was so abusive," Salve said, adding that once when he was appearing in a case relating to a Christian medical college and the subsequent happenings on his Twitter handle forced him to delete it. "I have stopped looking at them," Nariman said, adding that unwarranted comments about almost everything can be found on these platforms. The bench then said that one of the observations made during the hearing on the Rohingya matters was projected as if an order was delivered and it became a subject matter of debate. Anything that disrupts free exchange of views between the judges and the arguing lawyers needs to be curbed, Salve said. The bench also said that there was misuse of social media platforms and people disseminated wrong information even about the court proceedings. "Earlier the right to privacy could have been infringed by the state only. Now such things emanate from private parties also," the bench said. Pointing out that a newspaper or a media organisation which gets an audio clip, publishes it without taking any responsibility of its authenticity, Salve asked: "does it not amount to infringement of privacy". The concept of "my house is my castle" is fast fading due to the intrusion of private players, the bench said. Nariman then said the Indian civil laws were "defective" and unable to handle such incidents. "There was an urgent need to have some kind of regulation," Salve said. The bench agreed to the suggestion. Meanwhile, the top court today referred to a constitution bench questions like whether a public functionary or a minister can claim freedom of speech while airing views in a sensitive matter which is under investigation.

Supreme Court says necessary to regulate social media