Today, Sharad Arvind Bobde took oath at Rashtrapati Bhavan and officially takes charge as the 47th Chief Justice of India succeeding CJI Ranjan Gogoi. Bobde will be serving as CJI for nearly 18 months from now. Watch this video to find out more in details.

Sharad Arvind Bobde officially takes charge as the 47th Chief Justice of India

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act while also adding that the transparency only strengthens the judicial independence.

A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna were hearing a petition challenging the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which ruled that office of CJI comes under the purview of RTI.

The apex court said that the public interest demands that the transparency is maintained.

"Right to privacy and confidentiality is an important aspect and it has to be balanced. There has to be a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy as well as confidentiality and independence of the judiciary,"&nbsp;it said.

Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier observed that in the name of transparency, one cannot destroy the institution.

In November 2007, an RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed an RTI in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges` assets but the information was denied.

Aggarwal then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which asked the apex court to disclose information on the ground that the Chief Justice of India`s office comes within the ambit of the Act.In January 2009, a plea was moved in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order but the latter was upheld.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act while also adding that the transparency only strengthens the judicial independence.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the office of Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" and comes under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act while also adding that the transparency only strengthens the judicial independence. A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna were hearing a petition challenging the January 2010 judgment of the Delhi High Court which ruled that office of CJI comes under the purview of RTI. The apex court said that the public interest demands that the transparency is maintained. "Right to privacy and confidentiality is an important aspect and it has to be balanced. There has to be a balance between the right to information and the right to privacy as well as confidentiality and independence of the judiciary," it said. Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier observed that in the name of transparency, one cannot destroy the institution. In November 2007, an RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal had filed an RTI in the Supreme Court seeking information on judges` assets but the information was denied. Aggarwal then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) which asked the apex court to disclose information on the ground that the Chief Justice of India`s office comes within the ambit of the Act.In January 2009, a plea was moved in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order but the latter was upheld.

RTI Act applicable to office of Chief Justice: Supreme Court

President Ram Nath Kovind on Tuesday signed a warrant appointing Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI).

Justice Bobde, who will be the 47th Chief Justice of India, will take oath as CJI on November 18.

He will succeed CJI Ranjan Gogoi who will retire on November 17.

Justice Bobde was born in 1956 at Nagpur, Maharashtra and obtained his BA&nbsp;and LLB. degrees from Nagpur University.

He enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra in 1978. He practised law at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court with appearances at Bombay before the Principal Seat and before the Supreme Court for over 21 years.

He was designated as a senior advocate in 1998. Justice Bobde was elevated to the bench of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000, as an Additional Judge.

He was sworn in as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 16, 2012.

In April 2013, he was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on April 12, 2013. Justice Bobde will retire on April 23, 2021. 
&nbsp;

President Ram Nath Kovind on Tuesday signed a warrant appointing Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI). Justice Bobde, who will be the 47th Chief Justice of India, will take oath as CJI on November 18.

President Ram Nath Kovind on Tuesday signed a warrant appointing Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI). Justice Bobde, who will be the 47th Chief Justice of India, will take oath as CJI on November 18. He will succeed CJI Ranjan Gogoi who will retire on November 17. Justice Bobde was born in 1956 at Nagpur, Maharashtra and obtained his BA and LLB. degrees from Nagpur University. He enrolled on the rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra in 1978. He practised law at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court with appearances at Bombay before the Principal Seat and before the Supreme Court for over 21 years. He was designated as a senior advocate in 1998. Justice Bobde was elevated to the bench of the Bombay High Court on March 29, 2000, as an Additional Judge. He was sworn in as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court on October 16, 2012. In April 2013, he was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on April 12, 2013. Justice Bobde will retire on April 23, 2021.

Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde appointed next CJI, will take oath on November 18

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has recommended the name of the second senior-most judge, Justice SA Bobde, as the next Chief Justice of India by writing a letter of appointment.

As per the tradition, the sitting CJI has to write and recommend his immediate successor.

CJI Gogoi is going to retire on November 17.

After the recommendation by CJI Gogoi, if Justice Bobde would be appointed as the next Chief Justice, then he will serve the post for one year and five months till April 2021.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has recommended the name of the second senior-most judge, Justice SA Bobde, as the next Chief Justice of India by writing a letter of appointment.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has recommended the name of the second senior-most judge, Justice SA Bobde, as the next Chief Justice of India by writing a letter of appointment. As per the tradition, the sitting CJI has to write and recommend his immediate successor. CJI Gogoi is going to retire on November 17. After the recommendation by CJI Gogoi, if Justice Bobde would be appointed as the next Chief Justice, then he will serve the post for one year and five months till April 2021.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi recommends Justice SA Bobde's name as his successor

The Lok Sabha on Monday passed a bill to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed after a reply by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

As on June 1, there were 58,669 cases pending in the apex court.

Prasad said it was not possible for the Chief Justice of India to constitute five Judges Bench on a regular basis to hear cases involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as it would result in constitution of less number of division benches which would lead to delay in hearing of other civil and criminal matters.

The feeder cadre of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts has increased from 906 to 1,079 and presently new High Courts have also been established in the previous years, he said.

"This has led to an increase in the disposal of cases at the High Court level leading to a larger number of appeals to the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present thirty to thirty-three excluding the Chief Justice of India", he said.

The Chief Justice of India had intimated the government that inadequate strength of judges is one of the prime reasons for the backlog of cases in the apex court.&nbsp;

The Lok Sabha on Monday passed a bill to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

The Lok Sabha on Monday passed a bill to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed after a reply by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad. As on June 1, there were 58,669 cases pending in the apex court. Prasad said it was not possible for the Chief Justice of India to constitute five Judges Bench on a regular basis to hear cases involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as it would result in constitution of less number of division benches which would lead to delay in hearing of other civil and criminal matters. The feeder cadre of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts has increased from 906 to 1,079 and presently new High Courts have also been established in the previous years, he said. "This has led to an increase in the disposal of cases at the High Court level leading to a larger number of appeals to the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, proposed to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present thirty to thirty-three excluding the Chief Justice of India", he said. The Chief Justice of India had intimated the government that inadequate strength of judges is one of the prime reasons for the backlog of cases in the apex court.

Lok Sabha passes bill to increase number of judges in Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to increase the strength of judges and raise the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

Gogoi has also urged the prime minister to make tenure appointments of retired apex court judges and high court judges under Articles 128 and 224A of the Constitution respectively to clear the backlog of cases pending for years.

The CJI, who wrote three letters to the PM, said there was pendency of 58,669 cases in the top court and the number was increasing due to the filing of more fresh cases.

Due to paucity of judges, the required number of Constitution benches to decide important cases involving questions of law were not being formed, the CJI said.

"You would recall that way back in 1988, about three decades ago, the judge strength of the SC was increased from 18 to 26, and then again after two decades in 2009, it was increased to 31, including the CJI, to expedite disposal of cases to keep pace with the rate of institution," he wrote.

"I request you to kindly consider, on top priority, to augment the judge-strength in the SC appropriately so that it can function more efficiently and effectively as it will go a long way to attain the ultimate goal of rendering timely justice to the litigant public," Gogoi wrote.

He said that though the size of the feeder cadre of chief justice and judges of the high courts has increased in the past yet the strength has not been increased proportionally in the top court.

In his second letter, the CJI urged Modi to consider bringing a constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65 years.

"One of the prime reasons why we are not able to contain the ever-growing pendency is a shortage of HC judges. At present, 399 posts, or 37 per cent of sanctioned judge-strength, are vacant. The existing vacancies need to be filled immediately. However, despite best efforts put in by all stakeholders, it has not been possible to appoint judges to bring the working judge-strength anywhere close to the sanctioned judge-strength," Gogoi wrote.

The CJI also wrote that the retirement age of high court judges should be raised by three years to 65 years.

"This, in turn, would help in improving the vacancy position and consequently reducing pendency of cases. This would also be in consonance with the (repeated) recommendations made by parliamentary standing committees," he wrote.

Gogoi further said, "A judge takes time to evolve and by the time he is in a position to put innovative thoughts based on rich experience to the practice, he finds himself nearing retirement. This can be avoided if the age of retirement is raised to an appropriate level so that his vast experience, deeper insight and expertise can be utilised for a longer period."

"In my view also, if retired HC judges are considered for appointment in tribunals beyond the age of 62 years, they may continue in HCs up to 65 years. The proposal suggested will ensure continued availability of more experienced judges for a longer tenure," he wrote.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to increase the strength of judges and raise the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking to increase the strength of judges and raise the retirement age of high court judges to 65 years. Gogoi has also urged the prime minister to make tenure appointments of retired apex court judges and high court judges under Articles 128 and 224A of the Constitution respectively to clear the backlog of cases pending for years. The CJI, who wrote three letters to the PM, said there was pendency of 58,669 cases in the top court and the number was increasing due to the filing of more fresh cases. Due to paucity of judges, the required number of Constitution benches to decide important cases involving questions of law were not being formed, the CJI said. "You would recall that way back in 1988, about three decades ago, the judge strength of the SC was increased from 18 to 26, and then again after two decades in 2009, it was increased to 31, including the CJI, to expedite disposal of cases to keep pace with the rate of institution," he wrote. "I request you to kindly consider, on top priority, to augment the judge-strength in the SC appropriately so that it can function more efficiently and effectively as it will go a long way to attain the ultimate goal of rendering timely justice to the litigant public," Gogoi wrote. He said that though the size of the feeder cadre of chief justice and judges of the high courts has increased in the past yet the strength has not been increased proportionally in the top court. In his second letter, the CJI urged Modi to consider bringing a constitutional amendment to increase the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65 years. "One of the prime reasons why we are not able to contain the ever-growing pendency is a shortage of HC judges. At present, 399 posts, or 37 per cent of sanctioned judge-strength, are vacant. The existing vacancies need to be filled immediately. However, despite best efforts put in by all stakeholders, it has not been possible to appoint judges to bring the working judge-strength anywhere close to the sanctioned judge-strength," Gogoi wrote. The CJI also wrote that the retirement age of high court judges should be raised by three years to 65 years. "This, in turn, would help in improving the vacancy position and consequently reducing pendency of cases. This would also be in consonance with the (repeated) recommendations made by parliamentary standing committees," he wrote. Gogoi further said, "A judge takes time to evolve and by the time he is in a position to put innovative thoughts based on rich experience to the practice, he finds himself nearing retirement. This can be avoided if the age of retirement is raised to an appropriate level so that his vast experience, deeper insight and expertise can be utilised for a longer period." "In my view also, if retired HC judges are considered for appointment in tribunals beyond the age of 62 years, they may continue in HCs up to 65 years. The proposal suggested will ensure continued availability of more experienced judges for a longer tenure," he wrote.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi writes to PM Narendra Modi, seeks increase in number of Supreme Court judges

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee.

The complainant, who worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank), had expressed "shock" over the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">clean chit</a> given to the CJI in the case and demanded a copy of the in-house committee order. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it.

The ex-woman staffer had raised the Vishakha guidelines of 1997 in demanding the proof, but sources said the guidelines were superseded by the POSH Act of 2013. "It is true that the POSH Act also has the provision to a copy of the findings to the complainant but it has to be borne in mind that in-house procedure pertains to sitting high court and Supreme Court judges who are vulnerable on account of sensitivity of the issues they handle, to motivated and false complaints so as to pressurise them. The Supreme Court's in-house procedure has the sanctity of being termed as a special law which shall prevail over the general law on the shubject i.e. the POSH Act of 2013," sources said.

They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ex-woman-employees-silence-hints-at-conspiracy-against-cji-say-sources-216779">sexual harassment allegations</a> against the CJI.

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-one-analyses-things-carefully-you-will-find-something-fishy-bar-council-of-india-on-sexual-harassment-allegation-against-cji-216598">"something fishy"</a> in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee.

Reacting to the demand of in-house committee order made by former Supreme Court woman staffer, who had alleged she was sexually harassed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, sources have said it is not possible because of the mandate of the apex court's committee. The complainant, who worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank), had expressed "shock" over the clean chit given to the CJI in the case and demanded a copy of the in-house committee order. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it. The ex-woman staffer had raised the Vishakha guidelines of 1997 in demanding the proof, but sources said the guidelines were superseded by the POSH Act of 2013. "It is true that the POSH Act also has the provision to a copy of the findings to the complainant but it has to be borne in mind that in-house procedure pertains to sitting high court and Supreme Court judges who are vulnerable on account of sensitivity of the issues they handle, to motivated and false complaints so as to pressurise them. The Supreme Court's in-house procedure has the sanctity of being termed as a special law which shall prevail over the general law on the shubject i.e. the POSH Act of 2013," sources said. They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said. The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

'Why repeatedly skipping inquiries?' Sources on CJI accuser's demand for clean chit copy

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-ranjan-gogoi-gets-clean-chit-in-sexual-harassment-case-by-supreme-courts-in-house-panel-216443">gave a clean chit</a> to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead.

Sources say the complainant worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank) for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI. The sources also say that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking bribe in the name of providing employment in Supreme Court.

Another fact, sources say, reveals that in a complaint sent to Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and the Lieutenant Governor in March this year, there was no mention of any sexual harassment.

All this proves allegation is false on the face of it and is part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI, sources added.

The conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress presidetn Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters, sources said.

The conspiracy acquired significance because it involves the dismissal of two employees of Supreme Court who are accused of tampering the judicial order, sources said, adding that the CJI had successfully contained irregularities in listing of cases and took an unprecedented stance against corruption. These dismissed employees, therefore, joined hands with fixers and planned the entire thing, sources said.

This comes on a day when the former woman employee of the Supreme Court demanded a copy of the in-house committee order, expressing "shock" over the clean chit given to Chief Justice of India. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/if-one-analyses-things-carefully-you-will-find-something-fishy-bar-council-of-india-on-sexual-harassment-allegation-against-cji-216598">"something fishy"</a> in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI.

The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead.

Day after the Supreme Court's in-house committee gave a clean chit to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi over sexual harassment complaint by a woman employee, sources have questioned why the woman court staffer didn't file any formal complaint and went to the media instead. Sources say the complainant worked as junior court assistant (an entry level clerical rank) for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI. The sources also say that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking bribe in the name of providing employment in Supreme Court. Another fact, sources say, reveals that in a complaint sent to Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and the Lieutenant Governor in March this year, there was no mention of any sexual harassment. All this proves allegation is false on the face of it and is part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI, sources added. The conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress presidetn Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters, sources said. The conspiracy acquired significance because it involves the dismissal of two employees of Supreme Court who are accused of tampering the judicial order, sources said, adding that the CJI had successfully contained irregularities in listing of cases and took an unprecedented stance against corruption. These dismissed employees, therefore, joined hands with fixers and planned the entire thing, sources said. This comes on a day when the former woman employee of the Supreme Court demanded a copy of the in-house committee order, expressing "shock" over the clean chit given to Chief Justice of India. The ex-staffer asserted that she had a right to it. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI. The in-house committee led by Justice S A Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee, also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Chief Justice appeared before the panel on May 1.

Ex-woman employee's silence hints at conspiracy against CJI, say sources

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the government's objection over documents used by petitioners to seek review of Rafale judgement. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the documents are admissible.

"We deem it proper to dismiss preliminary objections and hold and affirm the review petitions will be adjudicated on the basis of relevance of the three documents whose admissibility was questioned by the government," the bench said.

On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal.

The Centre had opposed admissibility of the three documents obtained and published by a leading newspaper in its report claiming these documents were stolen from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and violated the Official Secrets Act (OSA), where government - due to national security issue - had kept such crucial information hidden from public domain.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had contended that no one can produce the documents in the court without the permission of the department concerned as these are protected under the OSA and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a).

The Centre had also claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said they cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The court had then question as to how important secret documents were stolen from the defence ministry and told the MoD to get its house in order.

Bhushan had, however, contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments".

Bhushan had said that government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and are in public domain. He further said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents".

While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the OSA.

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the government's objection over documents used by petitioners to seek review of Rafale judgement. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the documents are admissible.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the government's objection over documents used by petitioners to seek review of Rafale judgement. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the documents are admissible. "We deem it proper to dismiss preliminary objections and hold and affirm the review petitions will be adjudicated on the basis of relevance of the three documents whose admissibility was questioned by the government," the bench said. On March 14, the apex court had reserved verdict on the preliminary objections raised by the Centre on admissibility of privileged documents annexed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie as also activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan in their review petition against the top court's December 14 judgement that dismissed all petitions against the Rafale jet deal. The Centre had opposed admissibility of the three documents obtained and published by a leading newspaper in its report claiming these documents were stolen from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and violated the Official Secrets Act (OSA), where government - due to national security issue - had kept such crucial information hidden from public domain. Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had contended that no one can produce the documents in the court without the permission of the department concerned as these are protected under the OSA and their disclosure is exempted under the Right to Information Act as per Section 8(1)(a). The Centre had also claimed privilege over documents pertaining to the Rafale fighter jet deal with France and said they cannot be considered in evidence as per Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court had then question as to how important secret documents were stolen from the defence ministry and told the MoD to get its house in order. Bhushan had, however, contended that the Centre's objections were "mala fide and totally untenable arguments". Bhushan had said that government cannot claim privilege over the documents which are already published and are in public domain. He further said that Section 123 Indian Evidence Act only protected "unpublished documents". While the Centre was making submission that the documents can be withheld from disclosure under the RTI Act in view of the national security, the top court said Section 22 of the RTI Act gave it an overriding effect over the OSA. (With inputs from agencies)

Rafale documents admissible, says Supreme Court dismissing Centre's objection

The Supreme Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation Thursday, telling it that "you have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you."&nbsp;

"Never play with SC's order," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi added.&nbsp;

The court added that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880">then interim</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880"> CBI director M Nageswara Rao was prima facie guilty of contempt of court</a> and ordered him and another official to appear before it on February 12.&nbsp;

The court's fury had been invoked after it was informed by the CBI counsel that Rao and the other official, the agency's director of prosecution, had transferred CBI officer AK Sharma — who had been investigating the Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case — without taking the court's consent.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
“We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you. Never play with SCs order,”Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi says after CBI counsel informed that 2 officials including M Nageswara Rao were involved in transferring Sharma. <a href="https://t.co/LSTnGwoJiY">https://t.co/LSTnGwoJiY</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1093448752315150336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

“We are going to take it very very seriously," CJI Gogoi added on Thursday.&nbsp;

Rao had been appointed interim CBI director after the government sent former director Alok Verma and his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana on leave.&nbsp;

Verma and Asthana had accused each other of corruption.&nbsp;

Rao was the first inspector general-level officer, ever, to be appointed CBI chief.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation Thursday, telling it that "you have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you." "Never play with SC's order," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi added.

The Supreme Court slammed the Central Bureau of Investigation Thursday, telling it that "you have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you." "Never play with SC's order," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi added. The court added that then interim CBI director M Nageswara Rao was prima facie guilty of contempt of court and ordered him and another official to appear before it on February 12. The court's fury had been invoked after it was informed by the CBI counsel that Rao and the other official, the agency's director of prosecution, had transferred CBI officer AK Sharma — who had been investigating the Muzaffarpur shelter home rape case — without taking the court's consent. “We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with order of Supreme Court of India. God help you. Never play with SCs order,”Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi says after CBI counsel informed that 2 officials including M Nageswara Rao were involved in transferring Sharma. https://t.co/LSTnGwoJiY — ANI (@ANI) February 7, 2019 × “We are going to take it very very seriously," CJI Gogoi added on Thursday. Rao had been appointed interim CBI director after the government sent former director Alok Verma and his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana on leave. Verma and Asthana had accused each other of corruption. Rao was the first inspector general-level officer, ever, to be appointed CBI chief.

'You have played with order of Supreme Court... God help you': Chief Justice of India to CBI

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI.&nbsp;

Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director. The CBI director is chosen by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

The plea will now be heard by another bench.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Chief Justice of India recuses himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has sought transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of the CBI Director. <a href="https://t.co/VwL8kEOjNK">pic.twitter.com/VwL8kEOjNK</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1087223638066188289?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 21, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The plea against Rao's appointment was filed by the NGO Common Cause after former director Alok Verma was transferred out of the agency. (Verma refused to take up his new posting, telling the government to instead consider him retired. Under the rules, the CBI director has an assured tenure of two years during which time he cannot be sacked, replaced or transferred.)&nbsp;

Verma had accused his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana of corruption.&nbsp;Asthana levelled the same charge against Verma. They were both finally shunted out.&nbsp;

ANI added that CJI Gogoi on Monday also sought transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection and appointment of the CBI director.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI. Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has recused himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim director of the CBI. Gogoi recused himself saying he is part of the selection panel that will choose a new CBI director. The CBI director is chosen by the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. The plea will now be heard by another bench. Chief Justice of India recuses himself from hearing a plea challenging M Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and has sought transparency in the process of short-listing, selection and appointment of the CBI Director. pic.twitter.com/VwL8kEOjNK — ANI (@ANI) January 21, 2019 × The plea against Rao's appointment was filed by the NGO Common Cause after former director Alok Verma was transferred out of the agency. (Verma refused to take up his new posting, telling the government to instead consider him retired. Under the rules, the CBI director has an assured tenure of two years during which time he cannot be sacked, replaced or transferred.) Verma had accused his second-in-command Rakesh Asthana of corruption. Asthana levelled the same charge against Verma. They were both finally shunted out. ANI added that CJI Gogoi on Monday also sought transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection and appointment of the CBI director.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi recuses himself from hearing plea against Nageswara Rao's appointment as interim CBI director 

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday told the Supreme Court that divesting CBI director Alok Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary".

In an interlocutory application filed in the pending petition, Kharge, who is also a member of the three-member selection committee which appoints the CBI director, said, "As a concerned stakeholder he brings to the attention of the court the brazen and illegal actions" of the political executive in interfering with the independent functioning of the CBI director.

The selection committee comprises the prime minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the leader of the opposition party / the single largest opposition party.

"The entire action of the central vigilance commission (CVC) vide its order October 23 and the DOPT vide order October 23 seeking to divest CBI director Alok Verma of his statutory powers and functions is completely illegal, arbitrary, punitive and without jurisdiction...," Kharge said.

Kharge, who is the leader of single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha, said the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act) clearly say that the tenure and terms of CBI director is protected and even the transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the committee.

He said the orders of the CVC and the DOPT divesting Verma of his powers, functions and duties is a "direct and concerted attempt" to impede the independent functioning of the CBI director.

Kharge, who claimed to have written a letter on October 25 to place on record that no meeting of the selection committee was convened to deliberate the issue, said, "It was also pointed out that the de facto transfer/divesting of the authority of the CBI director is illegal and mala fide."

In his petition settled by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and filed through advocate Devadatt Kamat, Kharge said CVC's order of October 23 is "completely without jurisdiction" as neither the DSPE Act nor the CVC Act, 2003 confers and empowers to divest the CBI director of his powers and duties.

Similarly, the central government cannot exercise any power under the DSPE Act which is in the derogation of the powers of the selection committee, Kharge said.

"It is submitted that the political executive vide order dated October 23 has completely negated the role of the statutory committee constituted under Section 4A of the DSPE Act which is entrusted with protecting the integrity of terms and tenure of the CBI director," Kharge said.

The veteran Congress leader said that he was neither consulted despite being a member of the selection committee nor was he part of any meeting or privy to any decision to divest Verma of his powers as the CBI director.

He sought quashing of CVC's and DOPT's October 23 orders.

Observing that the crisis in the CBI sparked by the internal feud should not linger on in the national interest, the Supreme Court had on October 26 set a two-week deadline for the CVC to complete its ongoing inquiry against CBI chief Verma and said a retired apex court judge will monitor the probe.

Both Verma and the CBI's number two Rakesh Asthana, a Special Director, were divested of their duties and sent on leave by the Centre on the intervening night of October 23 and October 24 in the wake of their bitter feud that triggered an unprecedented crisis in the 55-year history of the country's premier probe agency.

The court also made it clear that M Nageswara Rao, who is a Joint Director of the CBI, would only perform the routine tasks that are essential to keep the

CBI functional. Rao was given interim charge of looking after the duties of the CBI director after the top-level shake-up.

It said that all decisions taken by Rao be placed before it in a sealed cover on November 12, the next date of hearing.&nbsp;

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday told the Supreme Court that divesting CBI director Alok Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary".

Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge on Saturday told the Supreme Court that divesting CBI director Alok Verma of his statutory powers and functions is "completely illegal and arbitrary". In an interlocutory application filed in the pending petition, Kharge, who is also a member of the three-member selection committee which appoints the CBI director, said, "As a concerned stakeholder he brings to the attention of the court the brazen and illegal actions" of the political executive in interfering with the independent functioning of the CBI director. The selection committee comprises the prime minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the leader of the opposition party / the single largest opposition party. "The entire action of the central vigilance commission (CVC) vide its order October 23 and the DOPT vide order October 23 seeking to divest CBI director Alok Verma of his statutory powers and functions is completely illegal, arbitrary, punitive and without jurisdiction...," Kharge said. Kharge, who is the leader of single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha, said the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act) clearly say that the tenure and terms of CBI director is protected and even the transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the committee. He said the orders of the CVC and the DOPT divesting Verma of his powers, functions and duties is a "direct and concerted attempt" to impede the independent functioning of the CBI director. Kharge, who claimed to have written a letter on October 25 to place on record that no meeting of the selection committee was convened to deliberate the issue, said, "It was also pointed out that the de facto transfer/divesting of the authority of the CBI director is illegal and mala fide." In his petition settled by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and filed through advocate Devadatt Kamat, Kharge said CVC's order of October 23 is "completely without jurisdiction" as neither the DSPE Act nor the CVC Act, 2003 confers and empowers to divest the CBI director of his powers and duties. Similarly, the central government cannot exercise any power under the DSPE Act which is in the derogation of the powers of the selection committee, Kharge said. "It is submitted that the political executive vide order dated October 23 has completely negated the role of the statutory committee constituted under Section 4A of the DSPE Act which is entrusted with protecting the integrity of terms and tenure of the CBI director," Kharge said. The veteran Congress leader said that he was neither consulted despite being a member of the selection committee nor was he part of any meeting or privy to any decision to divest Verma of his powers as the CBI director. He sought quashing of CVC's and DOPT's October 23 orders. Observing that the crisis in the CBI sparked by the internal feud should not linger on in the national interest, the Supreme Court had on October 26 set a two-week deadline for the CVC to complete its ongoing inquiry against CBI chief Verma and said a retired apex court judge will monitor the probe. Both Verma and the CBI's number two Rakesh Asthana, a Special Director, were divested of their duties and sent on leave by the Centre on the intervening night of October 23 and October 24 in the wake of their bitter feud that triggered an unprecedented crisis in the 55-year history of the country's premier probe agency. The court also made it clear that M Nageswara Rao, who is a Joint Director of the CBI, would only perform the routine tasks that are essential to keep the CBI functional. Rao was given interim charge of looking after the duties of the CBI director after the top-level shake-up. It said that all decisions taken by Rao be placed before it in a sealed cover on November 12, the next date of hearing.

Divesting CBI director of powers 'illegal', 'arbitrary', Mallikarjun Kharge tells Supreme Court

Your Story: CJI Gogoi bans judges from taking leaves on working days

Ranjan Gogoi sworn in as Chief Justice of India

After holding an unprecedented press conference and capturing public attention over what ails the highest court of the country early this year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to helm the coveted seat of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) starting October 3.

At an event held in the capital last week, Justice Gogoi said that taking on the burgeoning pendency figures will be a priority during his 13-month long tenure as the next CJI.

While Justice Gogoi is yet to reveal his 'plan' to bring down pendency in the courts, which stands at around 3.18 crore cases, he has had a resounding success in bridging the gap between the government and the public in terms of welfare schemes' distribution.

As Executive Chairman of National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), Justice Gogoi spearheaded the program to hold legal service camps across the country wherein government departments set up stalls to highlight various welfare schemes and also made them available for the masses. A recent report released by NALSA said that around 43 lakh people have benefited from the camp.

Justice Gogoi has also been heading a bench in the apex court that is monitoring the preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in his home state Assam. The bench has been supervising the process of updating the NRC, prepared to identify residents of the state and weed out illegal migrants.

As CJI, Justice Gogoi will also be heading the bench of the top court that, for the first time in its history, will face a camera inside courtroom for live-streaming of the proceedings.

The pilot project aimed at bringing "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process will initially live-stream only cases of national and constitutional importance.

Justice Gogoi has also been overseeing the case relating to setting up of special courts across the country to exclusively hear and decide on criminal cases against sitting Members of Parliament and State Assemblies.

Justice Gogoi is also heading a bench looking over the progress in the appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas.

He was also hearing Central Bureau of Investigation's appeal against the acquittal of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the sensational Arushi Talwar murder case.

After a bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the 1994 Ismail Farooqi case to a larger Constitution bench, Justice Gogoi is likely to head the bench or form a new bench to hear Ayodhya dispute case, which is slated for hearing on October 29.

Another case which awaits Justice Gogoi's attention relates to pleas against the practices of polygamy, 'nikah halala', 'nikah mutah' (temporary marriage among Shias) and 'nikah misyar' (short-term marriage among Sunnis) on grounds that these violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

As per 'nikah halala', if a Muslim woman, after divorce by her husband three times on different instances, wants to go back to him, she has to marry another person, consummate her marriage, divorce her second husband so as to get re-married to her first spouse.

On September 3, President Ram Nath Kovind, appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th CJI. The 64-year-old will be the first Chief Justice from the North Eastern region of the country.

Justice Gogoi will have a tenure of little over 13 months and would retire on November 17, 2019.

After holding an unprecedented press conference and capturing public attention over what ails the highest court of the country early this year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to helm the coveted seat of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) starting October 3.

After holding an unprecedented press conference and capturing public attention over what ails the highest court of the country early this year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to helm the coveted seat of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) starting October 3. At an event held in the capital last week, Justice Gogoi said that taking on the burgeoning pendency figures will be a priority during his 13-month long tenure as the next CJI. While Justice Gogoi is yet to reveal his 'plan' to bring down pendency in the courts, which stands at around 3.18 crore cases, he has had a resounding success in bridging the gap between the government and the public in terms of welfare schemes' distribution. As Executive Chairman of National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), Justice Gogoi spearheaded the program to hold legal service camps across the country wherein government departments set up stalls to highlight various welfare schemes and also made them available for the masses. A recent report released by NALSA said that around 43 lakh people have benefited from the camp. Justice Gogoi has also been heading a bench in the apex court that is monitoring the preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in his home state Assam. The bench has been supervising the process of updating the NRC, prepared to identify residents of the state and weed out illegal migrants. As CJI, Justice Gogoi will also be heading the bench of the top court that, for the first time in its history, will face a camera inside courtroom for live-streaming of the proceedings. The pilot project aimed at bringing "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process will initially live-stream only cases of national and constitutional importance. Justice Gogoi has also been overseeing the case relating to setting up of special courts across the country to exclusively hear and decide on criminal cases against sitting Members of Parliament and State Assemblies. Justice Gogoi is also heading a bench looking over the progress in the appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas. He was also hearing Central Bureau of Investigation's appeal against the acquittal of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the sensational Arushi Talwar murder case. After a bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the 1994 Ismail Farooqi case to a larger Constitution bench, Justice Gogoi is likely to head the bench or form a new bench to hear Ayodhya dispute case, which is slated for hearing on October 29. Another case which awaits Justice Gogoi's attention relates to pleas against the practices of polygamy, 'nikah halala', 'nikah mutah' (temporary marriage among Shias) and 'nikah misyar' (short-term marriage among Sunnis) on grounds that these violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. As per 'nikah halala', if a Muslim woman, after divorce by her husband three times on different instances, wants to go back to him, she has to marry another person, consummate her marriage, divorce her second husband so as to get re-married to her first spouse. On September 3, President Ram Nath Kovind, appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th CJI. The 64-year-old will be the first Chief Justice from the North Eastern region of the country. Justice Gogoi will have a tenure of little over 13 months and would retire on November 17, 2019.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi to overhaul judiciary as next Chief Justice of India

Justice Ranjan Gogoi was on Wednesday sworn in as the 46th Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/telnNMCQcVE" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Gogoi's oath of office was administered by President Ram Nath Kovind. The swearing-in ceremony, at Rashtrapati Bhavan’s Darbar Hall, was brief.

Gogoi is the first person from India's Northeast to assume the country's highest judicial office. He is thought of as a "tough" judge.&nbsp;

Gogoi had made headlines earlier this year when he, along with three of the Supreme Court's seniormost judges, had held an unprecedented press conference. The four judges had at the time hinted to the media that they were unhappy with the way things were being run at the Supreme Court, and that they worried that "democracy was in danger".&nbsp;

The judges had hinted that they were not happy with the way cases were being assigned in the country's highest court. The assigning of cases in the Supreme Court is the Chief Justice's purview.&nbsp;

Gogoi had said last week that tackling pending cases would be a priority during his 13-month-long tenure as CJI.

While Gogoi is yet to reveal his "plan"&nbsp;to tackle pending cases, there are 3.18 crore of them at the moment, he has had resounding success in bridging the gap between the government and public in terms of the distribution of welfare schemes.

As Executive Chairman of National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), Justice Gogoi spearheaded the program to hold legal service camps across the country wherein government departments set up stalls to highlight various welfare schemes and also made them available for the masses.&nbsp;

A recent report released by NALSA said that around 43 lakh people have benefited from the camp.

Justice Gogoi has also been heading a bench in the apex court that is monitoring the preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in his home state Assam. The bench has been supervising the process of updating the NRC, prepared to identify residents of the state and weed out illegal migrants.

As CJI, Justice Gogoi will also be heading the bench of the top court that, for the first time in its history, will face a camera inside courtroom for live-streaming of the proceedings.

The pilot project aimed at bringing "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process will initially live-stream only cases of national and constitutional importance.

Gogoi has also been overseeing the case relating to setting up of special courts across the country to exclusively hear and decide on criminal cases against sitting Members of Parliament and State Assemblies.

Gogoi will have a tenure of a little over 13 months and will retire on November 17, 2019.

(With inputs from ANI)&nbsp;

Justice Ranjan Gogoi was on Wednesday sworn in as the 46th Chief Justice of India. × Gogoi's oath of office was administered by President Ram Nath Kovind. The swearing-in ceremony, at Rashtrapati Bhavan’s Darbar Hall, was brief.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi was on Wednesday sworn in as the 46th Chief Justice of India. × Gogoi's oath of office was administered by President Ram Nath Kovind. The swearing-in ceremony, at Rashtrapati Bhavan’s Darbar Hall, was brief. Gogoi is the first person from India's Northeast to assume the country's highest judicial office. He is thought of as a "tough" judge. Gogoi had made headlines earlier this year when he, along with three of the Supreme Court's seniormost judges, had held an unprecedented press conference. The four judges had at the time hinted to the media that they were unhappy with the way things were being run at the Supreme Court, and that they worried that "democracy was in danger". The judges had hinted that they were not happy with the way cases were being assigned in the country's highest court. The assigning of cases in the Supreme Court is the Chief Justice's purview. Gogoi had said last week that tackling pending cases would be a priority during his 13-month-long tenure as CJI. While Gogoi is yet to reveal his "plan" to tackle pending cases, there are 3.18 crore of them at the moment, he has had resounding success in bridging the gap between the government and public in terms of the distribution of welfare schemes. As Executive Chairman of National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), Justice Gogoi spearheaded the program to hold legal service camps across the country wherein government departments set up stalls to highlight various welfare schemes and also made them available for the masses. A recent report released by NALSA said that around 43 lakh people have benefited from the camp. Justice Gogoi has also been heading a bench in the apex court that is monitoring the preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in his home state Assam. The bench has been supervising the process of updating the NRC, prepared to identify residents of the state and weed out illegal migrants. As CJI, Justice Gogoi will also be heading the bench of the top court that, for the first time in its history, will face a camera inside courtroom for live-streaming of the proceedings. The pilot project aimed at bringing "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process will initially live-stream only cases of national and constitutional importance. Gogoi has also been overseeing the case relating to setting up of special courts across the country to exclusively hear and decide on criminal cases against sitting Members of Parliament and State Assemblies. Gogoi will have a tenure of a little over 13 months and will retire on November 17, 2019. (With inputs from ANI)

Ranjan Gogoi sworn in as 46th Chief Justice of India

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra will be remembered for pronouncing some of the historical judgements that have been pending for a long time. Justice Misra was the 45th CJI.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi will succeed him and will take over on October 3. However, the CJI's term also saw his brother judges in January publically criticising the functioning of Supreme Court and on 'selective assigning of cases'.

They also released a letter that they had written to the CJI to highlight the 'corrosion and compromise taking place within the institution of the judiciary and especially within the portals of the Supreme Court.'&nbsp;

The judges also had issues with regard to the assignment of the case pertaining to the mysterious death of Special Central Bureau of Investigation judge, Justice Brijgopal Harikrishna Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.

Later, in July this year, the bench headed by CJI Misra dismissed a review petition filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association seeking an independent probe into Justice Loya's death case.

The apex court said that the petition was frivolous and has been filed in a motivated manner to denigrate the judiciary.

Amid ups and downs, during his tenure of nearly 14 months, CJI Misra was part of the bench that delivered historical judgements including allowing the entry of women in Sabarimala Temple, the&nbsp;validity of Aadhaar and striking down of Section 377 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A majority of these judgments were passed in the last week of CJI's tenure.

Here's a look at how things went on CJI Misra's tenure:

1. Decriminalisation of homosexuality

After months of deliberations, on September 6, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/historic-feat-india-decriminalises-homosexuality----a-timeline-of-events-163913">the Supreme Court struck down IPC Section 377</a> which criminalised homosexuality. The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra and comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, gave the verdict scrapping the colonial-era law.

The 157-year-old law criminalised certain sexual acts, terming them as 'unnatural offences', punishable by a 10-year jail term. Criminalising gay sex is "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary", CJI Misra observed while delivering the verdict and adding that Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community has the same rights as any other citizen.

He said that Section 377 was used as a weapon to harass people, resulting in discrimination.

2. Validity of Aadhaar

On September 26, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">upheld the Constitutional validity of Aadhaar</a> but with caveats.

While the bench asserted that Aadhaar empowers the marginalised sections of the society, it ruled that Aadhaar Card cannot be mandatory for admissions to schools and colleges, mobile phone connections, opening bank accounts.

The bench added that the 12-digit unique identification number is needed for social benefit schemes and filing income tax.

The top court also asked the central government to introduce a strong data protection law as soon as possible.

3. SC/ST reservation in job promotions

The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra, refused to refer its 2006 judgement on quotas in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes to the seven-judge bench on September 26.

The court had earlier paved way for grant of quota for promotions in the government jobs to SC/ST while directing that the states were not required to collect "quantifiable data" reflecting the backwardness among these communities.

4. Live streaming of court proceedings

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court on September 26 allowed the live streaming of its proceedings in the cases that hold Constitutional importance.

Rendering the judgement, the bench, comprising of CJI Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud allowed the live-streaming saying the move will bring "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process.

The apex court said a pilot project may be initially taken up for about three months by live-streaming only cases of national and Constitutional importance from Court Number 1 presided over by the Chief Justice.

However, certain sensitive cases like matrimonial or sexual assault cases, matters where children and juveniles are involved will be excluded.

5. Decriminalising adultery

The Supreme Court on September 27 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/adultery-not-criminal-offence-says-supreme-court-167930">decriminalised adultery by striking down Section 497</a> of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), terming it unconstitutional.

The five-judge Constitution bench, led by CJI Misra, in four separate but concurring opinions held that "adultery is not a crime", adding that Section 497 treats a married woman as the commodity of her husband.

The apex court observed that mere adultery cannot be a crime unless it attracts the scope of IPC's Section 306 (Abetment of suicide).

The top court also made it clear that adultery can be a ground for divorce."It's time to say that the husband is not the master of the wife. Legal sovereignty of one sex over other sex is wrong," CJI Misra opined.

6. The Sabarimala Case

On September 28, the five-judge <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabrimala-verdict-activists-temple-board-unhappy-file-review-petition-168300">Constitution bench removed all restrictions imposed by </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabrimala-verdict-activists-temple-board-unhappy-file-review-petition-168300">Sabarimala</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sabrimala-verdict-activists-temple-board-unhappy-file-review-petition-168300"> Temple</a> with regard to the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50.

Pronouncing the verdict, CJI Misra said that the ban in place violated Constitutional principles and that women's rights cannot be subverted as they are in no way less than men.

The court said that no physiological and biological factor can be given legitimacy if it doesn't pass the test of conditionality.

On the one hand, women are worshipped as Goddesses, but there are restrictions on the other hand, said CJI Misra while reading the judgement.

"Relationship with God can't be defined by biological or physiological factors," he added.

7. Nirbhaya rape case

Upholding its earlier order of death sentence, the Supreme Court on July 9 dismissed review pleas filed by three of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case.

The verdict came after less than six years of five men and a juvenile gang-raping and brutally injuring a 23-year-old girl on a moving bus in Delhi and later dumping her on the road with her male friend. The girl succumbed to her injuries after 13 days of the incident.

A three-judge bench, headed by CJI Misra and comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and R Bhanumathi, pronounced the verdict in the case.

The judgement came in response to a review petition filed by three death row convicts -- Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta -- against the Supreme Court order of May 2017, which said that Nirbhaya's rapists and killers should be hanged.

Apart from these path-breaking judgements, CJI Misra also faced severe criticism from his colleagues.

In an unprecedented move, four Supreme Court judges -- Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurien Joseph -- on January 12 called a press conference where they said that they were compelled to act in such way because CJI Misra could not be persuaded to mend the ways of the court.

These judges had earlier written letters to the CJI on this issue. Justice J. Chelameshwar (now retired), who spoke on behalf of four other judges said the administration of the nation's top court was not in order.

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra will be remembered for pronouncing some of the historical judgements that have been pending for a long time. Justice Misra was the 45th CJI.

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra will be remembered for pronouncing some of the historical judgements that have been pending for a long time. Justice Misra was the 45th CJI. Justice Ranjan Gogoi will succeed him and will take over on October 3. However, the CJI's term also saw his brother judges in January publically criticising the functioning of Supreme Court and on 'selective assigning of cases'. They also released a letter that they had written to the CJI to highlight the 'corrosion and compromise taking place within the institution of the judiciary and especially within the portals of the Supreme Court.' The judges also had issues with regard to the assignment of the case pertaining to the mysterious death of Special Central Bureau of Investigation judge, Justice Brijgopal Harikrishna Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. Later, in July this year, the bench headed by CJI Misra dismissed a review petition filed by the Bombay Lawyers Association seeking an independent probe into Justice Loya's death case. The apex court said that the petition was frivolous and has been filed in a motivated manner to denigrate the judiciary. Amid ups and downs, during his tenure of nearly 14 months, CJI Misra was part of the bench that delivered historical judgements including allowing the entry of women in Sabarimala Temple, the validity of Aadhaar and striking down of Section 377 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A majority of these judgments were passed in the last week of CJI's tenure. Here's a look at how things went on CJI Misra's tenure: 1. Decriminalisation of homosexuality After months of deliberations, on September 6, the Supreme Court struck down IPC Section 377 which criminalised homosexuality. The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra and comprising Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, gave the verdict scrapping the colonial-era law. The 157-year-old law criminalised certain sexual acts, terming them as 'unnatural offences', punishable by a 10-year jail term. Criminalising gay sex is "irrational, indefensible and manifestly arbitrary", CJI Misra observed while delivering the verdict and adding that Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community has the same rights as any other citizen. He said that Section 377 was used as a weapon to harass people, resulting in discrimination. 2. Validity of Aadhaar On September 26, a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra upheld the Constitutional validity of Aadhaar but with caveats. While the bench asserted that Aadhaar empowers the marginalised sections of the society, it ruled that Aadhaar Card cannot be mandatory for admissions to schools and colleges, mobile phone connections, opening bank accounts. The bench added that the 12-digit unique identification number is needed for social benefit schemes and filing income tax. The top court also asked the central government to introduce a strong data protection law as soon as possible. 3. SC/ST reservation in job promotions The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by CJI Misra, refused to refer its 2006 judgement on quotas in promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes to the seven-judge bench on September 26. The court had earlier paved way for grant of quota for promotions in the government jobs to SC/ST while directing that the states were not required to collect "quantifiable data" reflecting the backwardness among these communities. 4. Live streaming of court proceedings In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court on September 26 allowed the live streaming of its proceedings in the cases that hold Constitutional importance. Rendering the judgement, the bench, comprising of CJI Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud allowed the live-streaming saying the move will bring "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process. The apex court said a pilot project may be initially taken up for about three months by live-streaming only cases of national and Constitutional importance from Court Number 1 presided over by the Chief Justice. However, certain sensitive cases like matrimonial or sexual assault cases, matters where children and juveniles are involved will be excluded. 5. Decriminalising adultery The Supreme Court on September 27 decriminalised adultery by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), terming it unconstitutional. The five-judge Constitution bench, led by CJI Misra, in four separate but concurring opinions held that "adultery is not a crime", adding that Section 497 treats a married woman as the commodity of her husband. The apex court observed that mere adultery cannot be a crime unless it attracts the scope of IPC's Section 306 (Abetment of suicide). The top court also made it clear that adultery can be a ground for divorce."It's time to say that the husband is not the master of the wife. Legal sovereignty of one sex over other sex is wrong," CJI Misra opined. 6. The Sabarimala Case On September 28, the five-judge Constitution bench removed all restrictions imposed by Sabarimala Temple with regard to the entry of women between the ages of 10 to 50. Pronouncing the verdict, CJI Misra said that the ban in place violated Constitutional principles and that women's rights cannot be subverted as they are in no way less than men. The court said that no physiological and biological factor can be given legitimacy if it doesn't pass the test of conditionality. On the one hand, women are worshipped as Goddesses, but there are restrictions on the other hand, said CJI Misra while reading the judgement. "Relationship with God can't be defined by biological or physiological factors," he added. 7. Nirbhaya rape case Upholding its earlier order of death sentence, the Supreme Court on July 9 dismissed review pleas filed by three of the four convicts in the Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case. The verdict came after less than six years of five men and a juvenile gang-raping and brutally injuring a 23-year-old girl on a moving bus in Delhi and later dumping her on the road with her male friend. The girl succumbed to her injuries after 13 days of the incident. A three-judge bench, headed by CJI Misra and comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and R Bhanumathi, pronounced the verdict in the case. The judgement came in response to a review petition filed by three death row convicts -- Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma and Pawan Gupta -- against the Supreme Court order of May 2017, which said that Nirbhaya's rapists and killers should be hanged. Apart from these path-breaking judgements, CJI Misra also faced severe criticism from his colleagues. In an unprecedented move, four Supreme Court judges -- Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurien Joseph -- on January 12 called a press conference where they said that they were compelled to act in such way because CJI Misra could not be persuaded to mend the ways of the court. These judges had earlier written letters to the CJI on this issue. Justice J. Chelameshwar (now retired), who spoke on behalf of four other judges said the administration of the nation's top court was not in order.

As Dipak Misra demits office, a look at his historic judgements as CJI

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Monday demitted office and made way for his successor Justice Ranjan Gogoi to take over. In his farewell speech at an event held by the Supreme Court Bar Association in Delhi, Misra stated that he does not judge people by their history but by their actions.&nbsp;

"I do not judge people by their history but by their perspective and by their actions," Misra stated.&nbsp;

He added that truth has no colour and described Indian judiciary as one of the most robust in the world.&nbsp;

"Tears of poor man are equal to tears of a rich man," he said, adding that the Bar council connects judges with the reality.&nbsp;

"We live in the time of extreme political churning," Misra noted.&nbsp;

Misra's successor, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, hailed Misra stating that "he has upheld freedom of the individual to choose and express choice. Cases like Shakti Vahini, Shafin Jahan and Navtej Johar involved individual's liberty to choose his choice in form of a partner whom society doesn't approve."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
When SC Bar Assn connects a judge with ground reality, it's a strong bridge. It doesn't mean that judges aren't aware of reality but I am talking of the needed bridge to connect. It connects us to belong&amp;it matters: Outgoing CJI Dipak Misra during his farewell address in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a> <a href="https://t.co/UNXcZBV9o2">pic.twitter.com/UNXcZBV9o2</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1046733064368353280?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Justice Misra, earlier in the day, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/emotional-cji-holds-court-last-time-168743">got emotional while holding court</a>, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time.

CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes.&nbsp;

Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice AM Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
He has upheld freedom of individual to choose&amp;express choice.Cases like Shakti Vahini,Shafin Jahan&amp;Navtej Johar involved individual's liberty to choose his choice in form of partner whom society doesn't apporve: CJI-designate R Gogoi at farewell function to CJI Dipak Misra <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a> <a href="https://t.co/zM4xpQHnls">pic.twitter.com/zM4xpQHnls</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1046733510591934464?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations and delivered several verdicts in the recent past.

These include upholding the Centre's flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery.

The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I appreciate responsive wisdom of the youth, of which I'm a part. Today young lawyers are assets&amp;they've potentiality to develop jurisprudence in new areas of legislation as law &amp; jurisprudence cannot be static: Outgoing CJI Dipak Misra during his farewell address in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a> <a href="https://t.co/aIgCJLWlzH">pic.twitter.com/aIgCJLWlzH</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1046736909999861761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 1, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Justice Misra was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011, and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017.

He is demitting office after leaving behind a tenure that lasted 13 months.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Monday demitted office and made way for his successor Justice Ranjan Gogoi to take over. In his farewell speech at an event held by the Supreme Court Bar Association in Delhi, Misra stated that he does not judge people by their history but by their actions.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Monday demitted office and made way for his successor Justice Ranjan Gogoi to take over. In his farewell speech at an event held by the Supreme Court Bar Association in Delhi, Misra stated that he does not judge people by their history but by their actions. "I do not judge people by their history but by their perspective and by their actions," Misra stated. He added that truth has no colour and described Indian judiciary as one of the most robust in the world. "Tears of poor man are equal to tears of a rich man," he said, adding that the Bar council connects judges with the reality. "We live in the time of extreme political churning," Misra noted. Misra's successor, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, hailed Misra stating that "he has upheld freedom of the individual to choose and express choice. Cases like Shakti Vahini, Shafin Jahan and Navtej Johar involved individual's liberty to choose his choice in form of a partner whom society doesn't approve." When SC Bar Assn connects a judge with ground reality, it's a strong bridge. It doesn't mean that judges aren't aware of reality but I am talking of the needed bridge to connect. It connects us to belong&it matters: Outgoing CJI Dipak Misra during his farewell address in #Delhi pic.twitter.com/UNXcZBV9o2 — ANI (@ANI) October 1, 2018 × Justice Misra, earlier in the day, got emotional while holding court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time. CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes. Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice AM Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI. He has upheld freedom of individual to choose&express choice.Cases like Shakti Vahini,Shafin Jahan&Navtej Johar involved individual's liberty to choose his choice in form of partner whom society doesn't apporve: CJI-designate R Gogoi at farewell function to CJI Dipak Misra #Delhi pic.twitter.com/zM4xpQHnls — ANI (@ANI) October 1, 2018 × CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations and delivered several verdicts in the recent past. These include upholding the Centre's flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery. The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple. I appreciate responsive wisdom of the youth, of which I'm a part. Today young lawyers are assets&they've potentiality to develop jurisprudence in new areas of legislation as law & jurisprudence cannot be static: Outgoing CJI Dipak Misra during his farewell address in #Delhi pic.twitter.com/aIgCJLWlzH — ANI (@ANI) October 1, 2018 × Justice Misra was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011, and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017. He is demitting office after leaving behind a tenure that lasted 13 months. (With inputs from PTI)

'We live in time of extreme political churning,' Dipak Misra during farewell speech 

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-upholds-validity-aadhaar-says-cant-be-insisted-education-and-banking">Aadhaar Act</a> could not have been passed as Money Bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down, Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud said Wednesday.

Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, wrote a separate judgement saying he had expressed some views different from that of the verdict pronounced by Justice A K Sikri.

Bypassing the Rajya Sabha to pass the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/complete-list-services-exempted-aadhaar-supreme-court-directive-167758"> Aadhaar Act</a> amounted to subterfuge and the law was liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 110 of the Constitution, he ruled.

Article 110 has specific grounds for Money Bill and the Aadhaar law went beyond this, Justice Chandrachud said, adding that in the current form, the Act cannot be held to be constitutional.

He observed that the enactment of the Act does not save the Centre's Aadhaar scheme.

Noting that mobile phone has become an important feature of life and its seeding with Aadhaar posed a grave threat to privacy, liberty, autonomy, he favoured deletion of consumers' Aadhaar data by the mobile service providers.

Maintaining that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Rules proceeded on assumption that every bank account holder is a money launderer, he said the assumption that every individual who opens a bank account is a potential terrorist or a launderer is "draconian", he said.

Justice Chandrachud also said collection of data may lead to individual profiling of citizens.

He said the Aadhaar programme violated informational privacy, self-determination and data protection. It has been admitted by UIDAI that it stores vital data which is violative of right to privacy, he added.

This data was vulnerable to be misused by third party and private vendors, and that too, without the consent of an individual, Justice Chandrachud maintained and said the Aadhaar project has failed to remedy the flaws in its design, leading to exclusion.

Allowing private players to use Aadhaar will lead to profiling, which could be used to ascertain the political views of citizens, the judge, who pronounced his separate verdict, said.

He also held that denial of social welfare measures was violation of fundamental rights of citizens.

There is no institutional responsibility of the UIDAI to protect the data of citizens, he said, adding that there was absence of a regulatory mechanism to provide robust data protection.

However, he said it was now impossible to live in India without Aadhaar but it was violative of Article 14.

If Aadhaar is seeded with every database, then there is chance of infringement of right to privacy, he said.

Justice Chandrachud said while Parliament possesses the right to make a law, the absence of protection leads to violation of various rights.

The Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as Money Bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down, Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud said Wednesday.

The Aadhaar Act could not have been passed as Money Bill as it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and is liable to be struck down, Supreme Court Justice D Y Chandrachud said Wednesday. Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, wrote a separate judgement saying he had expressed some views different from that of the verdict pronounced by Justice A K Sikri. Bypassing the Rajya Sabha to pass the Aadhaar Act amounted to subterfuge and the law was liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 110 of the Constitution, he ruled. Article 110 has specific grounds for Money Bill and the Aadhaar law went beyond this, Justice Chandrachud said, adding that in the current form, the Act cannot be held to be constitutional. He observed that the enactment of the Act does not save the Centre's Aadhaar scheme. Noting that mobile phone has become an important feature of life and its seeding with Aadhaar posed a grave threat to privacy, liberty, autonomy, he favoured deletion of consumers' Aadhaar data by the mobile service providers. Maintaining that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Rules proceeded on assumption that every bank account holder is a money launderer, he said the assumption that every individual who opens a bank account is a potential terrorist or a launderer is "draconian", he said. Justice Chandrachud also said collection of data may lead to individual profiling of citizens. He said the Aadhaar programme violated informational privacy, self-determination and data protection. It has been admitted by UIDAI that it stores vital data which is violative of right to privacy, he added. This data was vulnerable to be misused by third party and private vendors, and that too, without the consent of an individual, Justice Chandrachud maintained and said the Aadhaar project has failed to remedy the flaws in its design, leading to exclusion. Allowing private players to use Aadhaar will lead to profiling, which could be used to ascertain the political views of citizens, the judge, who pronounced his separate verdict, said. He also held that denial of social welfare measures was violation of fundamental rights of citizens. There is no institutional responsibility of the UIDAI to protect the data of citizens, he said, adding that there was absence of a regulatory mechanism to provide robust data protection. However, he said it was now impossible to live in India without Aadhaar but it was violative of Article 14. If Aadhaar is seeded with every database, then there is chance of infringement of right to privacy, he said. Justice Chandrachud said while Parliament possesses the right to make a law, the absence of protection leads to violation of various rights.

Aadhaar law couldn't have been passed as Money Bill, amounts to fraud on Constitution: Justice Chandrachud

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master.

Luthra, who mentioned the matter before the bench, said the court should fix a date for hearing as it is an urgent matter.

"You wait and see. You give the mentioning memo, we will see to it," the bench said.

In their plea, Luthra along with petitioner advocate Satyaveer Sharma said they are seeking adjudication of the question of law for which they are relying on

the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court.

The plea said the petitioners were also relying on an undated letter addressed to Chief Justice of India and circulated by the four apex court judges.

"This act of the four senior most judges of the court was not less than a sabotage to the judicial system of the country. They tried to arouse public furore in the country in the names of certain internal differences in this court," the plea said.

It said that "the petitioners are aggrieved of the actions and omissions on the part of respondent 1 (Union of India) and respondent 2 (Chief Justice of India), which has resulted into appointment of respondent 3 (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) as the Chief Justice of India instead of reprimanding him for his illegal and anti-institutional act".

The petition said that act of Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 "is illegal and unconstitutional and also against the canons of law because the appointment on highest post of judiciary has been awarded to a person who is guilty of committing judicial impropriety and judicial misconduct".

The plea also sought quashing of the order of appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the Chief Justice of India with effect from October 3.

On September 3, the president has appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He will take oath on October 3 after incumbent Chief Justice Dipak Misra retires.

Justice Gogoi will be the first Chief Justice of India from Assam. The warrant of appointment of Justice Gogoi as Chief Justice had come in less than 10 days after Chief Justice Dipak Misra recommended his name as successor.&nbsp;

Justice Gogoi would have a tenure as Chief Justice of India of about 13 months till his retirement on November 17, 2019.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master. Luthra, who mentioned the matter before the bench, said the court should fix a date for hearing as it is an urgent matter. "You wait and see. You give the mentioning memo, we will see to it," the bench said. In their plea, Luthra along with petitioner advocate Satyaveer Sharma said they are seeking adjudication of the question of law for which they are relying on the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court. The plea said the petitioners were also relying on an undated letter addressed to Chief Justice of India and circulated by the four apex court judges. "This act of the four senior most judges of the court was not less than a sabotage to the judicial system of the country. They tried to arouse public furore in the country in the names of certain internal differences in this court," the plea said. It said that "the petitioners are aggrieved of the actions and omissions on the part of respondent 1 (Union of India) and respondent 2 (Chief Justice of India), which has resulted into appointment of respondent 3 (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) as the Chief Justice of India instead of reprimanding him for his illegal and anti-institutional act". The petition said that act of Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 "is illegal and unconstitutional and also against the canons of law because the appointment on highest post of judiciary has been awarded to a person who is guilty of committing judicial impropriety and judicial misconduct". The plea also sought quashing of the order of appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the Chief Justice of India with effect from October 3. On September 3, the president has appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He will take oath on October 3 after incumbent Chief Justice Dipak Misra retires. Justice Gogoi will be the first Chief Justice of India from Assam. The warrant of appointment of Justice Gogoi as Chief Justice had come in less than 10 days after Chief Justice Dipak Misra recommended his name as successor. Justice Gogoi would have a tenure as Chief Justice of India of about 13 months till his retirement on November 17, 2019.

SC to hear plea challenging appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as next CJI

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre.

The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour.

Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days.

At its last meeting on May 11, the Collegium had agreed in principle to reiterate its recommendation for elevating Justice Joseph as a judge of the apex court, almost three weeks after it was returned by the Centre, but could not decide on a date.

It had then adopted a resolution which stated that there was a need for further discussion on the issue of sending the other names of judges to the Centre and had decided to meet again today.

"The Chief Justice and other members of the Collegium have, on principle, unanimously agreed that the recommendation for appointment of Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court (Parent High Court: Kerala)as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be reiterated.

"However, the said reiteration should also be accompanied by the recommendation of the names of Chief Justices of High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, for which detailed discussion is required," the resolution of May 11 had said.

It had also decided to consider the names of other High Court Judges for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court.

Official sources said those high court judges who are in the race to be elevated to the apex court are Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, who is originally from the Calcutta HC, Gujarat HC Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, whose parent cadre is Telangana and Andhra Pradesh HC, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who is originally from Rajasthan HC.

The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

The Collegium has recommended the name of Additional Judge Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala to be appointed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

"Taking into consideration the material on record, the Collegium finds Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judge (of the Rajasthan High Court).

"In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend, for the present, that Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against one of the existing vacancies," its resolution said.

The collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four most senior SC judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated on the issue for more than an hour. This was their second meeting in 5 days

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre. The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour. Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days. At its last meeting on May 11, the Collegium had agreed in principle to reiterate its recommendation for elevating Justice Joseph as a judge of the apex court, almost three weeks after it was returned by the Centre, but could not decide on a date. It had then adopted a resolution which stated that there was a need for further discussion on the issue of sending the other names of judges to the Centre and had decided to meet again today. "The Chief Justice and other members of the Collegium have, on principle, unanimously agreed that the recommendation for appointment of Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court (Parent High Court: Kerala)as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be reiterated. "However, the said reiteration should also be accompanied by the recommendation of the names of Chief Justices of High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, for which detailed discussion is required," the resolution of May 11 had said. It had also decided to consider the names of other High Court Judges for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court. Official sources said those high court judges who are in the race to be elevated to the apex court are Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, who is originally from the Calcutta HC, Gujarat HC Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, whose parent cadre is Telangana and Andhra Pradesh HC, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who is originally from Rajasthan HC. The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. The Collegium has recommended the name of Additional Judge Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala to be appointed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court. "Taking into consideration the material on record, the Collegium finds Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judge (of the Rajasthan High Court). "In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend, for the present, that Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against one of the existing vacancies," its resolution said.

Collegium again defers decision on Justice KM Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

Collegium again defers decision on Justice Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

A crucial meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium was held today to discuss the issue of reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation to the apex court, after it was returned by the Centre. 
Official sources said the members of the Collegium deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour. Details on the outcome of the meeting are awaited.

All members of the Collegium -- Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, participated in the deliberations.&nbsp;

The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI.

It is pertinent to mention that Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the apex court, had on May 9 written a letter to the CJI urging him to convene the Collegium meet to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/convene-meeting-of-collegium-resend-justice-km-josephs-name-to-centre-justice-chelameswar-to-cji-misra-135904">urgently forward Justice Joseph's name</a> to the Centre.

The government had on April 26 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958">returned the Collegium's recommendation</a> to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

According to an apex court official, Justice Chelameswar, in his letter sent to the CJI, had conveyed that he was reiterating his decision favaouring elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the Collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10.

It is also learnt that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph.

The meeting of the Collegium was expected to take place on May 9 but Justice Chelameswar was on leave.&nbsp;

Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the Collegium on the issue concerning the Uttarakhand Chief Justice.&nbsp;

Justice Jasti Chelameswar had wrtten to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Thursday urging him to convene a meeting of the collegium, and send Justice Joseph's name back to the Centre

A crucial meeting of the Supreme Court Collegium was held today to discuss the issue of reconsidering the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice K M Joseph for elevation to the apex court, after it was returned by the Centre. Official sources said the members of the Collegium deliberated on the issue for nearly an hour. Details on the outcome of the meeting are awaited. All members of the Collegium -- Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, participated in the deliberations. The decision to convene the meeting was taken late last evening by the CJI. It is pertinent to mention that Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the apex court, had on May 9 written a letter to the CJI urging him to convene the Collegium meet to urgently forward Justice Joseph's name to the Centre. The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. According to an apex court official, Justice Chelameswar, in his letter sent to the CJI, had conveyed that he was reiterating his decision favaouring elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court as there was no change in the circumstances that had led the Collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. It is also learnt that Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph. The meeting of the Collegium was expected to take place on May 9 but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the Collegium on the issue concerning the Uttarakhand Chief Justice.

Meeting of collegium to decide on Justice Joseph's elevation to SC ends, decision awaited

Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India asking him to convene a meeting of the collegium to urgently forward the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph as a judge of the apex court to the Centre.

The government had on April 26 <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958http://www.wionews.com/india-news/government-asks-collegium-to-reconsider-elevation-of-justice-km-joseph-to-supreme-court-sources-132958">returned the collegium's recommendation</a> to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned Justice Joseph's seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

An apex court official said, in his letter sent to the CJI on Wednesday evening, Justice Chelameswar has conveyed that he was reiterating his decision for the elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court since there was no change in the circumstance that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. 
It is also learnt that, Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph.&nbsp;

The meeting of the collegium was expected to take place yesterday but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Besides the CJI and Justice Chelameswar, other members of the collegium are Justices Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph.

Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the collegium on the issue of Uttarakhand Chief Justice Joseph.

Though no official word was there on when the collegium would meet, the official said it is for the CJI to fix the date as there is no other agenda but to discuss the issue of returning the recommendation relating to Justice Joseph to the Centre.

Earlier also, notwithstanding the letters written by the collegium members to the CJI which had come into the public domain, the Centre had disregarded the recommendation about Justice Joseph.

The government had on April 26 returned Justice Joseph's name to the collegium asking it to reconsider its nomination of him. The government had said Kerala, from where Joseph hails, was adequately represented in the higher judiciary. It also wondered whether Justice Joseph was senior enough to be elevated to the Supreme Court

Justice J Chelameswar, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, has written a letter to the Chief Justice of India asking him to convene a meeting of the collegium to urgently forward the name of Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph as a judge of the apex court to the Centre. The government had on April 26 returned the collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned Justice Joseph's seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. An apex court official said, in his letter sent to the CJI on Wednesday evening, Justice Chelameswar has conveyed that he was reiterating his decision for the elevation of Justice Joseph as the judge of the top court since there was no change in the circumstance that had led the collegium to recommend his name to the government on January 10. It is also learnt that, Justice Chelameswar, who retires on June 22, has responded to all the points raised in the communication to the CJI by law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing reservations on the elevation of Justice Joseph. The meeting of the collegium was expected to take place yesterday but Justice Chelameswar was on leave. Besides the CJI and Justice Chelameswar, other members of the collegium are Justices Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Justice Kurian Joseph, during his visit to Kerala last week, had also reportedly made it clear that he was in favour of reiterating the recommendation of the collegium on the issue of Uttarakhand Chief Justice Joseph. Though no official word was there on when the collegium would meet, the official said it is for the CJI to fix the date as there is no other agenda but to discuss the issue of returning the recommendation relating to Justice Joseph to the Centre. Earlier also, notwithstanding the letters written by the collegium members to the CJI which had come into the public domain, the Centre had disregarded the recommendation about Justice Joseph.

Resend Justice KM Joseph's name to Centre: Justice Chelameswar to CJI

Supreme Court Constitutional <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/told-sonia-gandhi-rahul-not-to-go-ahead-with-impeachment-notice-says-mamata-banerjee-132617">Bench has dismissed petition </a>moved by the Congress to dismiss the Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra.

Congress lawyer Kapil Sibal has withdrawn plea to impeach the CJI.&nbsp;

Two Congress Rajya Sabha MPs&nbsp;Partab Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadray Yajnik had moved the apex court to impeach CJI&nbsp;Dipak Misra.

Vice President Venkaiah Naidu had earlier rejected the motion to impeach Misra in the Rajya Sabha calling it "timely and not hasty", adding that it was in "strict conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968."

Congress and Opposition parties had decided to move the Supreme Court against the Vice-President's move.

Later speaking to reporters, Kapil Sibal questioned the Bench, saying: "I had put forth seven questions to the Bench, I want to know how the bench was set up."

"No judicial order was passed," he added.

Rajya Sabha MPs Partab Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadray Yajnik had moved the apex court to impeach CJI Dipak Misra.

Supreme Court Constitutional Bench has dismissed petition moved by the Congress to dismiss the Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Misra. Congress lawyer Kapil Sibal has withdrawn plea to impeach the CJI. Two Congress Rajya Sabha MPs Partab Singh Bajwa and Amee Harshadray Yajnik had moved the apex court to impeach CJI Dipak Misra. Vice President Venkaiah Naidu had earlier rejected the motion to impeach Misra in the Rajya Sabha calling it "timely and not hasty", adding that it was in "strict conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968." Congress and Opposition parties had decided to move the Supreme Court against the Vice-President's move. Later speaking to reporters, Kapil Sibal questioned the Bench, saying: "I had put forth seven questions to the Bench, I want to know how the bench was set up." "No judicial order was passed," he added.

Congress withdraws petition to impeach CJI Dipak Misra in Supreme Court

The recent rejection of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI), which was a misadventure at the behest of Congress in conjunction with other opposition parties, did bring back the unsavoury flavour of 1970s and rekindled the debate of the political class trying to tame the judiciary for its own vested interests.

In the hindsight, it was in 1973, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI while superseding three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This appointment was against all established traditions of the Supreme Court. It caused widespread opposition and compelled the superseded judges to resign but to no avail. Again, in 1977, it was Justice M H Beg who was appointed as the CJI instead of one of the most illustrious judges of India, Justice H R Khanna. Letting his actions resonate with his conscience, Justice Khanna also resigned on the same day. A deeper analysis of these two incidents brings to the fore a disturbing revelation. As per the records, while Justice Ray and Justice Beg were rewarded for their pro-government stance, Justice Khanna paid the price for upholding the majesty of law against the interests of the government. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, Justice Khanna was the only judge who gave the judgment against the government while Justice Beg, who was a part of the same bench, ruled in favour.

And now, the impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move, whether justified or not. The details which are available in the public domain make it abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a malicious step taken for the vested interests and exert undue pressure on the judiciary. The impeachment proceedings against a constitutional functionary, holding an office as high as the CJI, ought to be supported by sound facts and rationale and cannot be a mere roving inquiry into the conduct.

Not only the opposition, even the government of the day cannot escape the blame. While it is criticising the impeachment motion wholeheartedly, its own disregard of the judiciary is noticeable. The latest in the series of various clashes between the judiciary and executive is the issue of elevation of Justice K M Joseph, who is currently the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand, to the Supreme Court. The Centre has raised various objections to the elevation. While these may, prima facie, not seem to be worthy of a doubt, at the root of it, however, is the fact that it was Justice K M Joseph who set aside President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Similarly, in 2014, similar circumstances prevailed when Gopal Subramaniam's name was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court. Although Subramniam himself withdrew his candidature to save himself that unfounded humiliation, it would not go unnoticed that it was him who, acting as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, convinced the Supreme Court to order CBI probe in the case.

Seniority is not a precondition for appointment or elevation in almost all the jurisdictions in the world. Even in India, the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice M C Chagla, was recommended to be directly appointed as the Chief Justice of India. It is only resorted to as a practice by the apex court but the way it is being misused by the executive makes its political motives abundantly clear. We have to realise that, while everyone has a right to disagree with the judicial verdicts - and we do see healthy criticisms of the same on a regular basis - the courts are the final interpreter of the laws and we, as citizens, are bound to accept them gracefully.

Ironically, when the President of Maldives tried to gag the judiciary, India urged the Maldivian government to abide by the apex court verdict, whereas, back home, our government is trying the same, albeit in a 'democratic' manner.

With due regards, this state of affairs has, in part, to do with judiciary refraining from coming down hard on the political class. As has been observed by various legal stalwarts, it is high time that the judiciary starts invoking the contempt provisions against such malicious actions, irrespective of the position and stature of the individual. It is only then that we can hope to reinstate the majesty of courts.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move.

The recent rejection of the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI), which was a misadventure at the behest of Congress in conjunction with other opposition parties, did bring back the unsavoury flavour of 1970s and rekindled the debate of the political class trying to tame the judiciary for its own vested interests. In the hindsight, it was in 1973, when the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appointed Justice A N Ray as CJI while superseding three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This appointment was against all established traditions of the Supreme Court. It caused widespread opposition and compelled the superseded judges to resign but to no avail. Again, in 1977, it was Justice M H Beg who was appointed as the CJI instead of one of the most illustrious judges of India, Justice H R Khanna. Letting his actions resonate with his conscience, Justice Khanna also resigned on the same day. A deeper analysis of these two incidents brings to the fore a disturbing revelation. As per the records, while Justice Ray and Justice Beg were rewarded for their pro-government stance, Justice Khanna paid the price for upholding the majesty of law against the interests of the government. In the case of ADM, Jabalpur vs Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, Justice Khanna was the only judge who gave the judgment against the government while Justice Beg, who was a part of the same bench, ruled in favour. And now, the impeachment motion against the CJI reveals the undying desire of the executive to have a committed judiciary and it is willing to resort to every move, whether justified or not. The details which are available in the public domain make it abundantly clear that it was nothing more than a malicious step taken for the vested interests and exert undue pressure on the judiciary. The impeachment proceedings against a constitutional functionary, holding an office as high as the CJI, ought to be supported by sound facts and rationale and cannot be a mere roving inquiry into the conduct. Not only the opposition, even the government of the day cannot escape the blame. While it is criticising the impeachment motion wholeheartedly, its own disregard of the judiciary is noticeable. The latest in the series of various clashes between the judiciary and executive is the issue of elevation of Justice K M Joseph, who is currently the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand, to the Supreme Court. The Centre has raised various objections to the elevation. While these may, prima facie, not seem to be worthy of a doubt, at the root of it, however, is the fact that it was Justice K M Joseph who set aside President's Rule in Uttarakhand. Similarly, in 2014, similar circumstances prevailed when Gopal Subramaniam's name was recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court. Although Subramniam himself withdrew his candidature to save himself that unfounded humiliation, it would not go unnoticed that it was him who, acting as amicus curiae in the Sohrabuddin encounter case, convinced the Supreme Court to order CBI probe in the case. Seniority is not a precondition for appointment or elevation in almost all the jurisdictions in the world. Even in India, the then Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Justice M C Chagla, was recommended to be directly appointed as the Chief Justice of India. It is only resorted to as a practice by the apex court but the way it is being misused by the executive makes its political motives abundantly clear. We have to realise that, while everyone has a right to disagree with the judicial verdicts - and we do see healthy criticisms of the same on a regular basis - the courts are the final interpreter of the laws and we, as citizens, are bound to accept them gracefully. Ironically, when the President of Maldives tried to gag the judiciary, India urged the Maldivian government to abide by the apex court verdict, whereas, back home, our government is trying the same, albeit in a 'democratic' manner. With due regards, this state of affairs has, in part, to do with judiciary refraining from coming down hard on the political class. As has been observed by various legal stalwarts, it is high time that the judiciary starts invoking the contempt provisions against such malicious actions, irrespective of the position and stature of the individual. It is only then that we can hope to reinstate the majesty of courts. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Politicising the judiciary - a disturbing trend

Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu today said his decision to reject the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was "timely and not a hasty one" and came after over a month of due diligence, according to sources.

"Freedom of expression allows that but ultimately truth prevails. I have done the just thing in the best possible manner expected of me," sources quoted Naidu as saying, a day after he rejected the impeachment motion.

He said his decision was in strict conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968.

"I have done my job and am satisfied with it," Naidu was quoted as telling a group of 10 Supreme Court lawyers who met him to compliment him over the decision.&nbsp

The Rajya Sabha chairman's office is not a mere post office but a constitutional functionary, Naidu, who is also the Vice-President, told the group.

According to sources, Naidu said the Chief Justice of India is the highest judicial functionary of the country and "any issue in public domain concerning him requires to be resolved at the earliest following prescribed procedures so as to prevent the atmosphere from being further vitiated".

Naidu yesterday rejected the notice by seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, to impeach the chief justice of India on five grounds of "misbehaviour", saying the allegations were neither "tenable nor admissible".

His order was slammed as "hasty, illegal and ill-informed" by the Congress.

Naidu said that he took the decision after over a month of due diligence.

Rajya Sabha Chairman Venkaiah Naidu today said his decision to reject the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was "timely and not a hasty one" and came after over a month of due diligence, according to sources. "Freedom of expression allows that but ultimately truth prevails. I have done the just thing in the best possible manner expected of me," sources quoted Naidu as saying, a day after he rejected the impeachment motion. He said his decision was in strict conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968. "I have done my job and am satisfied with it," Naidu was quoted as telling a group of 10 Supreme Court lawyers who met him to compliment him over the decision. The Rajya Sabha chairman's office is not a mere post office but a constitutional functionary, Naidu, who is also the Vice-President, told the group. According to sources, Naidu said the Chief Justice of India is the highest judicial functionary of the country and "any issue in public domain concerning him requires to be resolved at the earliest following prescribed procedures so as to prevent the atmosphere from being further vitiated". Naidu yesterday rejected the notice by seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, to impeach the chief justice of India on five grounds of "misbehaviour", saying the allegations were neither "tenable nor admissible". His order was slammed as "hasty, illegal and ill-informed" by the Congress.

Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty: Venkaiah Naidu

Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu has rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WWbv6ljOcNE" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"I have applied my mind to all five charges made out in impeachment motion and examined all annexed documents. All facts as stated in motion don't make out a case which can lead any reasonable mind to conclude that CJI on these facts can be ever held guilty of misbehavior,"&nbsp;ANI reported Naidu as saying.&nbsp;

Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had on Friday initiated an unprecedented step for the impeachment of the CJI, moving a notice accusing him of "misbehaviour" and "misuse" of authority.&nbsp;

Apart from the Congress, the group consisted of the CPI(M), CPI, NCP, SP, BSP and the Muslim League.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Naidu said the motion lacked substantial merit and that the allegations were neither "tenable nor admissible".&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

The vice president in his order held that that the allegations emerging from the present case have a serious tendency of "undermining" the independence of the judiciary.

Naidu based his decision on the opinion of top legal and constitutional experts, including former secretary generals of Lok Sabha and other legal luminaries with whom he held extensive consultations.&nbsp;

He also held the views of top legal and constitutional experts, including former chief justices and judges, before taking the decision, sources said.

"This is a really important matter. We don't know what was the reason for the rejection. Congress and other opposition parties will talk to some legal experts and take <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-may-move-court-if-impeachment-notice-rejected-132066">the next step</a>," ANI&nbsp;reported the Congress' PL Punia as saying on Monday.

The Congress had on Sunday said Misra should consider recusing himself from performing judicial and administrative work till he was cleared of allegations of misconduct.

The Congress also attacked the BJP for coming out in "defence" of the CJI and said the ruling party was compromising the position and office of the chief justice as the neutral arbitrator and head of the judiciary.

The party was doing great a disservice to the independence of the judicial system, it said.

"The CJI must come out and tell the BJP not to politicise his office," Congress leader Randeep Surjewala told reporters here.

He further said the CJI did not belong to any political party and questioned why he had to be defended by members and ministers of the ruling BJP.

The Chief Justice of India should be above suspicion, Surjewala said, adding that if CJI Misra's conduct had come under a cloud, he should consider recusing himself from performing his judicial and administrative duties.

"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. And that's why we left it to his (CJI) conscience. If his own conduct is under a cloud, should he not consider recusing himself from performing judicial and administrative duties and submit himself to the inquiry so that the high office and his individual integrity are cleared?" Surjewala asked.

This will ensure that the process of law is followed in an appropriate manner, the Congress leader added.&nbsp;

Further attacking the BJP over the issue, another Congress leader and Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha wondered how the BJP could relate the CJI to Odisha.

He is the chief justice of the entire nation and belongs to the entire country, Tankha said. 
Tankha, who is also an advocate, said as an MP, he was confident that the Rajya Sabha chairman would take an appropriate decision on the matter under the provisions of the Constitution.

"The country and citizens are looking for answers. And until then I feel the CJI should voluntarily submit himself for the inquiry," he said.

Speaking at the same press conference, senior advocate and nominated Rajya Sabha member K T S Tulsi said people took great pride in the integrity of judges.

But if there was even the slightest suspicion, it became the duty of Parliament to take note of that, he said.

"As MPs we are performing our duty with a very heavy heart but it is in the interest of the nation and interest of democracy that the inquiry should be held. And if no inquiry is held it would do much greater damage to the Supreme Court of the country," he added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

The motion had been moved by seven opposition parties led by the Congress. The parties had accused the CJI of 'misbehaviour' and 'misuse' of authority

Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu has rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. × "I have applied my mind to all five charges made out in impeachment motion and examined all annexed documents. All facts as stated in motion don't make out a case which can lead any reasonable mind to conclude that CJI on these facts can be ever held guilty of misbehavior," ANI reported Naidu as saying. Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had on Friday initiated an unprecedented step for the impeachment of the CJI, moving a notice accusing him of "misbehaviour" and "misuse" of authority. Apart from the Congress, the group consisted of the CPI(M), CPI, NCP, SP, BSP and the Muslim League. Naidu said the motion lacked substantial merit and that the allegations were neither "tenable nor admissible". The vice president in his order held that that the allegations emerging from the present case have a serious tendency of "undermining" the independence of the judiciary. Naidu based his decision on the opinion of top legal and constitutional experts, including former secretary generals of Lok Sabha and other legal luminaries with whom he held extensive consultations. He also held the views of top legal and constitutional experts, including former chief justices and judges, before taking the decision, sources said. "This is a really important matter. We don't know what was the reason for the rejection. Congress and other opposition parties will talk to some legal experts and take the next step," ANI reported the Congress' PL Punia as saying on Monday. The Congress had on Sunday said Misra should consider recusing himself from performing judicial and administrative work till he was cleared of allegations of misconduct. The Congress also attacked the BJP for coming out in "defence" of the CJI and said the ruling party was compromising the position and office of the chief justice as the neutral arbitrator and head of the judiciary. The party was doing great a disservice to the independence of the judicial system, it said. "The CJI must come out and tell the BJP not to politicise his office," Congress leader Randeep Surjewala told reporters here. He further said the CJI did not belong to any political party and questioned why he had to be defended by members and ministers of the ruling BJP. The Chief Justice of India should be above suspicion, Surjewala said, adding that if CJI Misra's conduct had come under a cloud, he should consider recusing himself from performing his judicial and administrative duties. "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. And that's why we left it to his (CJI) conscience. If his own conduct is under a cloud, should he not consider recusing himself from performing judicial and administrative duties and submit himself to the inquiry so that the high office and his individual integrity are cleared?" Surjewala asked. This will ensure that the process of law is followed in an appropriate manner, the Congress leader added. Further attacking the BJP over the issue, another Congress leader and Rajya Sabha member Vivek Tankha wondered how the BJP could relate the CJI to Odisha. He is the chief justice of the entire nation and belongs to the entire country, Tankha said. Tankha, who is also an advocate, said as an MP, he was confident that the Rajya Sabha chairman would take an appropriate decision on the matter under the provisions of the Constitution. "The country and citizens are looking for answers. And until then I feel the CJI should voluntarily submit himself for the inquiry," he said. Speaking at the same press conference, senior advocate and nominated Rajya Sabha member K T S Tulsi said people took great pride in the integrity of judges. But if there was even the slightest suspicion, it became the duty of Parliament to take note of that, he said. "As MPs we are performing our duty with a very heavy heart but it is in the interest of the nation and interest of democracy that the inquiry should be held. And if no inquiry is held it would do much greater damage to the Supreme Court of the country," he added. (With inputs from PTI)

Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu rejects impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra

Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra given by the Congress-led opposition in the Upper House. Naidu rejected the notice citing lack of substantial merit in it.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WWbv6ljOcNE" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Naidu held extensive consultations with top legal and constitutional experts before taking the decision, sources said. The rejection of the notice comes a day after he held consultations with experts to determine the maintainability of the motion.

Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had last week moved a notice before him for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on five grounds of "misbehaviour". Apart from the Congress, the group consisted of the CPI(M), CPI, NCP, SP, BSP and the Muslim League. The motion was signed by 64 sitting members of the Rajya Sabha.

This is the first time ever that an impeachment notice was filed against a sitting CJI.

How is the Chief Justice of India impeached?

The CJI can be impeached like other Supreme Court judges and constitutional positions, in accordance with the steps laid out in Constitution of India. The opposition parties moved the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution. As per Article 124 (4), "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."

The impeachment motion requires signatures of 100 Lok Sabha MPs and 50 Rajya Sabha MPs it can be introduced in either of the two Houses.

The motion is presented to the Speaker in case it is introduced in Lok Sabha, and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha in case it is given in the Upper House. If the motion is accepted, a committee is formed to investigate the charges levelled against a Supreme Court judge or the CJI. The charges, if found true by the committee in its investigation, will be taken up for discussion in the House where the motion was introduced.

The motion will have to be passed by two-third majority after the discussion it is then presented in the other House where it has to again cross the special majority. Once the motion is successfully passed in both Houses of Parliament, it is sent to the President to remove the Chief Justice of India.

This is the first time ever that an impeachment motion was filed against a sitting CJI.

Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra given by the Congress-led opposition in the Upper House. Naidu rejected the notice citing lack of substantial merit in it. × Naidu held extensive consultations with top legal and constitutional experts before taking the decision, sources said. The rejection of the notice comes a day after he held consultations with experts to determine the maintainability of the motion. Seven opposition parties led by the Congress had last week moved a notice before him for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on five grounds of "misbehaviour". Apart from the Congress, the group consisted of the CPI(M), CPI, NCP, SP, BSP and the Muslim League. The motion was signed by 64 sitting members of the Rajya Sabha. This is the first time ever that an impeachment notice was filed against a sitting CJI. How is the Chief Justice of India impeached? The CJI can be impeached like other Supreme Court judges and constitutional positions, in accordance with the steps laid out in Constitution of India. The opposition parties moved the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution. As per Article 124 (4), "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity." The impeachment motion requires signatures of 100 Lok Sabha MPs and 50 Rajya Sabha MPs it can be introduced in either of the two Houses. The motion is presented to the Speaker in case it is introduced in Lok Sabha, and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha in case it is given in the Upper House. If the motion is accepted, a committee is formed to investigate the charges levelled against a Supreme Court judge or the CJI. The charges, if found true by the committee in its investigation, will be taken up for discussion in the House where the motion was introduced. The motion will have to be passed by two-third majority after the discussion it is then presented in the other House where it has to again cross the special majority. Once the motion is successfully passed in both Houses of Parliament, it is sent to the President to remove the Chief Justice of India.

Why the impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra was rejected by Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu

Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Sunday set in motion the process of consultation on the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and held discussions with constitutional and legal experts, including Attorney General K K Venugopal.

The vice president cut short his visit to Hyderabad and reached here to hold deliberations over the notice given by the seven opposition parties.

According to officials, Naidu spoke to former Lok Sabha secretary general Subhash Kashyap, ex-law secretary P K Malhotra and former legislative secretary Sanjay Singh on the issue.

He also held deliberations with senior officials of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the officials said, adding that Naidu also spoke to former Supreme Court judge B Sudarshan Reddy.

Sources said the vice president also spoke to Attorney General K K Venugopal over the issue.&nbsp

Leaders of the opposition parties had on Friday met Naidu and handed over the notice of impeachment against the chief justice of India (CJI) bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members, who recently retired.

The opposition parties, led by the Congress, initiated the unprecedented step to impeach the CJI by moving the notice levelling charges against him. The parties had briefed the media after handing over the notice to the Upper House chairman.&nbsp&nbsp &nbsp&nbsp

While reviewing the notice, the Rajya Sabha officials had mentioned that making public the contents of a notice before it is admitted by the chair is in violation of parliamentary rules.

According to the provisions in the handbook for Rajya Sabha members, no advance publicity should be given to any notice to be taken up in the House till it is admitted by the chairman.

The move to propose impeachment notice against the CJI has led to a slugfest between the Congress and the BJP.&nbsp

Meanwhile, the Congress said that the CJI should be considering recusing himself from judicial and administrative duties until his name is cleared.

The BJP has said the Congress was trying to demean, degrade and denigrate the judiciary by moving the notice.&nbsp

The vice president cut short his visit to Hyderabad and reached here to hold deliberations over the notice given by the seven opposition parties.

Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Sunday set in motion the process of consultation on the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and held discussions with constitutional and legal experts, including Attorney General K K Venugopal. The vice president cut short his visit to Hyderabad and reached here to hold deliberations over the notice given by the seven opposition parties. According to officials, Naidu spoke to former Lok Sabha secretary general Subhash Kashyap, ex-law secretary P K Malhotra and former legislative secretary Sanjay Singh on the issue. He also held deliberations with senior officials of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, the officials said, adding that Naidu also spoke to former Supreme Court judge B Sudarshan Reddy. Sources said the vice president also spoke to Attorney General K K Venugopal over the issue. Leaders of the opposition parties had on Friday met Naidu and handed over the notice of impeachment against the chief justice of India (CJI) bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members, who recently retired. The opposition parties, led by the Congress, initiated the unprecedented step to impeach the CJI by moving the notice levelling charges against him. The parties had briefed the media after handing over the notice to the Upper House chairman. While reviewing the notice, the Rajya Sabha officials had mentioned that making public the contents of a notice before it is admitted by the chair is in violation of parliamentary rules. According to the provisions in the handbook for Rajya Sabha members, no advance publicity should be given to any notice to be taken up in the House till it is admitted by the chairman. The move to propose impeachment notice against the CJI has led to a slugfest between the Congress and the BJP. Meanwhile, the Congress said that the CJI should be considering recusing himself from judicial and administrative duties until his name is cleared. The BJP has said the Congress was trying to demean, degrade and denigrate the judiciary by moving the notice.

Venkaiah Naidu starts consultation process on impeachment notice against CJI

Opposition parties led by the Congress will meet today to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and are likely to submit it to Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu.

According to sources, opposition parties including the Congress, the NCP, the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and some others will meet in Parliament to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion.

Thereafter, the opposition parties will meet the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and are likely to submit the same today itself, the sources said.

A time has already been sought from the Chairman, they said.

“We will meet today to give final shape to the impeachment motion to be moved against the Chief Justice of India,” an opposition leader said.

Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it.

The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

The SC judgement was delivered by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.

An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by a total of at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100.

Once the notice of an impeachment motion is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion.

In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it.

If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country's history that an impeachment would be moved against the Chief Justice of India.

Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it.

Opposition parties led by the Congress will meet today to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and are likely to submit it to Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu. According to sources, opposition parties including the Congress, the NCP, the Left parties, the Samajwadi Party (SP), the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and some others will meet in Parliament to give final shape to the proposed impeachment motion. Thereafter, the opposition parties will meet the Chairman of Rajya Sabha and are likely to submit the same today itself, the sources said. A time has already been sought from the Chairman, they said. “We will meet today to give final shape to the impeachment motion to be moved against the Chief Justice of India,” an opposition leader said. Sources said the Trinamool Congress and the DMK, which were initially in favour of the impeachment against the CJI, are no longer part of it. The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. The SC judgement was delivered by a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India. An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by a total of at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100. Once the notice of an impeachment motion is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion. In case he finds merit, then he may form a committee to look into it, else he can reject it. If moved, this will be the first time ever in the country's history that an impeachment would be moved against the Chief Justice of India.

Opposition parties to meet to give shape to proposed CJI impeachment motion 