The Opposition is likely to hold a meeting in the Parliament today. The meeting will&nbsp;discuss the political situation prevailing in the&nbsp;country and is expected to be held in the chamber of Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad.&nbsp;

The leaders may discuss the recent <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-loya-death-case-supreme-court-dismisses-plea-for-sit-probe-131322">Supreme Court verdict on the death of judge BH Loya</a>. The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya.The court said attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court.&nbsp;

The leaders may also take up the issue of moving an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The opposition party leaders may also discuss the collective measures that to take in order to defeat the BJP in the upcoming assembly polls.

The meeting is expected to be held in the chamber of Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad

The Opposition is likely to hold a meeting in the Parliament today. The meeting will discuss the political situation prevailing in the country and is expected to be held in the chamber of Opposition leader Ghulam Nabi Azad. The leaders may discuss the recent Supreme Court verdict on the death of judge BH Loya. The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya.The court said attempts were made to scandalise the judiciary by levelling serious allegations against judicial officers and judges of the Bombay High Court. The leaders may also take up the issue of moving an impeachment motion against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The opposition party leaders may also discuss the collective measures that to take in order to defeat the BJP in the upcoming assembly polls.

Opposition party leaders likely to meet today

The opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.&nbsp;The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

Here's we take a look at the 5-Step procedure to impeach the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-impeachment-row-seven-parties-move-motion-to-sack-dipak-misra-131618"> Chief Justice of India</a>:

Step 1: A notice of motion is issued by 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha. This motion for removal can be moved in either House.

Step 2: The motion can either be accepted or rejected by the Speaker/Chairman of the House. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or the Chairman of the House forms a three-member committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court and a distinguished jurist to investigate the charges. This committee would look into the alleged charges levelled against the Chief Justice of India.

Step 3: If the three-member committee decides to support the motion, it is taken up for discussion in the House, where it had been introduced and must be passed by a special majority - which means it has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.

Step 4: Once it is passed, it is taken up in the next House where again it needs to be passed by a special majority.

Step 5: After the motion is passed through both the Houses with two-third majority, the President of India is approached to remove the Chief Justice of India.

A notice of motion is issued by 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha. This motion for removal can be moved in either House.

The opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI. The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP. Here's we take a look at the 5-Step procedure to impeach the Chief Justice of India: Step 1: A notice of motion is issued by 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha. This motion for removal can be moved in either House. Step 2: The motion can either be accepted or rejected by the Speaker/Chairman of the House. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or the Chairman of the House forms a three-member committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court and a distinguished jurist to investigate the charges. This committee would look into the alleged charges levelled against the Chief Justice of India. Step 3: If the three-member committee decides to support the motion, it is taken up for discussion in the House, where it had been introduced and must be passed by a special majority - which means it has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Step 4: Once it is passed, it is taken up in the next House where again it needs to be passed by a special majority. Step 5: After the motion is passed through both the Houses with two-third majority, the President of India is approached to remove the Chief Justice of India.

Here is the 5-step procedure to impeach Chief Justice of India

The BJP on Friday lashed out at the Congress for its move to impeach the chief justice of India, saying it was trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary after its "conspiracies" in the case of judge B H Loya's death and riot charges against its Gujarat leader Maya Kodnani were exposed.

BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi told reporters that the impeachment move is an attempt to pressure the judiciary and send out the message that "either you do what we say and if you dare not do as we command", then it will impeach judges.

She said Kodnani, who was acquitted by the Gujarat High Court today, was victimised by the Congress and implicated in a "false case" when it was in power at the Centre as it wanted to implicate the saffron party's leaders in false cases.

"It also hatched a conspiracy in the judge Loya death case. Evidence in these cases could not stand the judicial scrutiny. The Congress and other opposition parties levelled false allegations against our leaders but they are getting exposed now," she said.

Whether it was petitioned for a probe into the Loya death case or the charges against Kadnani, they were all fabricated cases, she said.

The Constitution envisaged by B R Ambedkar views the judiciary independent of policies but the Congress is trying to politicise it.&nbsp

As the opposition party is losing political ground, it has resorted to such pressure tactics motivated by "malice", Lekhi said.

It is an attempt to demean, degrade and denigrate the judiciary, she said.

The Supreme Court had yesterday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking probe to judge Loya's death, saying he died of natural cases.

The Gujarat High Court acquitted Kodnani, a former minister in the state government, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case in which 97 people were killed by a mob.&nbsp

Meenakshi Lekhi told reporters that the impeachment move is an attempt to pressure the judiciary and send out the message that "either you do what we say and if you dare not do as we command", then it will impeach judges.

The BJP on Friday lashed out at the Congress for its move to impeach the chief justice of India, saying it was trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary after its "conspiracies" in the case of judge B H Loya's death and riot charges against its Gujarat leader Maya Kodnani were exposed. BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi told reporters that the impeachment move is an attempt to pressure the judiciary and send out the message that "either you do what we say and if you dare not do as we command", then it will impeach judges. She said Kodnani, who was acquitted by the Gujarat High Court today, was victimised by the Congress and implicated in a "false case" when it was in power at the Centre as it wanted to implicate the saffron party's leaders in false cases. "It also hatched a conspiracy in the judge Loya death case. Evidence in these cases could not stand the judicial scrutiny. The Congress and other opposition parties levelled false allegations against our leaders but they are getting exposed now," she said. Whether it was petitioned for a probe into the Loya death case or the charges against Kadnani, they were all fabricated cases, she said. The Constitution envisaged by B R Ambedkar views the judiciary independent of policies but the Congress is trying to politicise it. As the opposition party is losing political ground, it has resorted to such pressure tactics motivated by "malice", Lekhi said. It is an attempt to demean, degrade and denigrate the judiciary, she said. The Supreme Court had yesterday dismissed a batch of petitions seeking probe to judge Loya's death, saying he died of natural cases. The Gujarat High Court acquitted Kodnani, a former minister in the state government, in the 2002 Naroda Patiya riots case in which 97 people were killed by a mob.

CJI impeachment move as Cong's conspiracies were exposed: BJP

Opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.

The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment.

After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI.

Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
INC COMMUNIQUE 
 
Statement issued by seven Opposition Parties led by LoP Rajya Sabha <a href="https://twitter.com/ghulamnazad?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ghulamnazad</a> on impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India. <a href="https://t.co/BQfoBARog1">pic.twitter.com/BQfoBARog1</a>
— INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/INCSandesh/status/987241058730852352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 20, 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>

Chief Justice has not asserted the independence of the judiciary: Kapil Sibal

Kapil Sibal said that the Opposition parties did not have any option apart from filing an impeachment notice. He said that the Chief Justice had not asserted the independence of the judiciary.

"We only wish to state that anyone occupying the office of Chief Justice of India must be judged on the basis of highest standards of integrity. The first charge relates to the conspiracy to pay illegal gratifications," Sibal said.

Ghulam Nabi Azad, in a press conference, said that Opposition parties had moved impeachment motion under five grounds of misbehaviour.

SC terms public statements on the impeachment of judges 'unfortunate'

The Supreme Court termed as very unfortunate the public statements, including those made by lawmakers, on the impeachment of judges.

"We are all very disturbed about it," a bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said after the counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the issue of politicians making public statements on the impeachment of judges.

The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to assist it to deal with the plea, which has also sought a gag on the media from reporting such statements.

(With inputs from Agencies)

According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.

Opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI. The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP. The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment. After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI. Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan. INC COMMUNIQUE Statement issued by seven Opposition Parties led by LoP Rajya Sabha @ghulamnazad on impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India. pic.twitter.com/BQfoBARog1 — INC Sandesh (@INCSandesh) April 20, 2018 × Chief Justice has not asserted the independence of the judiciary: Kapil Sibal Kapil Sibal said that the Opposition parties did not have any option apart from filing an impeachment notice. He said that the Chief Justice had not asserted the independence of the judiciary. "We only wish to state that anyone occupying the office of Chief Justice of India must be judged on the basis of highest standards of integrity. The first charge relates to the conspiracy to pay illegal gratifications," Sibal said. Ghulam Nabi Azad, in a press conference, said that Opposition parties had moved impeachment motion under five grounds of misbehaviour. SC terms public statements on the impeachment of judges 'unfortunate' The Supreme Court termed as very unfortunate the public statements, including those made by lawmakers, on the impeachment of judges. "We are all very disturbed about it," a bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan said after the counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the issue of politicians making public statements on the impeachment of judges. The apex court asked Attorney General KK Venugopal to assist it to deal with the plea, which has also sought a gag on the media from reporting such statements. (With inputs from Agencies)

CJI impeachment row: Seven parties move motion to sack Dipak Misra

Opposition parties led by the Congress today met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to sources, over 60 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.

The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment.

After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI.

Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan.

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 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 impeachment 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.&nbsp;

The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

Opposition parties led by the Congress today met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. According to sources, over 60 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI. The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP. The leaders of these parties earlier met in Parliament and gave final shape to the notice for impeachment. After the meeting, Leader of Opposition Ghulam Nabi Azad confirmed that the leaders were moving the notice for impeachment against CJI. Among those who attended the meeting in Parliament were Congress leaders Azad, Kapil Sibal and Randeep Surjewala, besides CPI's D Raja and NCP's Vandana Chavan. 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 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 impeachment 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 meet vice president, give notice for impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India.

A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in dealing with the PIL stating that the CJI cannot exercise arbitrary power in allocation of cases.

The petition was mentioned by Shanti Bhishan's son, advocate Prashant Bhushan, before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelaneswar, on Thursday but he had refused to hear the petition.

The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it.

"I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar had told Prashant Bhushan.

He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter.

"Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India.

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine former law minister Shanti Bhushan's plea challenging existing roster practice of allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India. A bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan sought the assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in dealing with the PIL stating that the CJI cannot exercise arbitrary power in allocation of cases. The petition was mentioned by Shanti Bhishan's son, advocate Prashant Bhushan, before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Chelaneswar, on Thursday but he had refused to hear the petition. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it. "I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar had told Prashant Bhushan. He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter. "Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea challenging allocation of cases by CJI

Supreme Court's senior-most judge, Justice J Chelameswar, on Thursday refused to hear a plea seeking to form guidelines on allocation of cases.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea filed by his father and former Union law minister Shanti Bhushan before Justice Chelameswar saying this was an emergency situation. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it.

"I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar said.

He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter.

"Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

The bench headed by CJI said, "We will look into it."

Justice Chelameswar's remarks came in the backdrop of two recent letters written by him and Justice Kurian Joseph over the affairs of the Supreme Court and alleged interference by the executive into judicial matters.

He said today that he had written a letter a few days ago to highlight affairs in the Supreme Court and in the country.

Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously.

Supreme Court's senior-most judge, Justice J Chelameswar, on Thursday refused to hear a plea seeking to form guidelines on allocation of cases. Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the plea filed by his father and former Union law minister Shanti Bhushan before Justice Chelameswar saying this was an emergency situation. The plea, Prashant Bhushan said, challenges the master of roster concept and hence the Chief Justice of India can't deal with it. "I don't want one more reversal of my order in next 24 hours. This is why I can't do it. Please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar said. He said the reasons were too obvious and he would not like to deal with the matter. "Someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something. There is nothing I can do much in this. I am sorry, you please understand my difficulty," Justice Chelameswar told Bhushan. Prashant Bhushan then rushed to Chief Justice Dipak Misra's court and mentioned the matter for listing expeditiously. The bench headed by CJI said, "We will look into it." Justice Chelameswar's remarks came in the backdrop of two recent letters written by him and Justice Kurian Joseph over the affairs of the Supreme Court and alleged interference by the executive into judicial matters. He said today that he had written a letter a few days ago to highlight affairs in the Supreme Court and in the country.

Justice Chelameswar refuses to hear plea against CJI's power as 'master of roster'

The Supreme Court said today that the post of Chief Justice of India(CJI) is the top institution and he is the first to decide on matters related to allocation of cases and setting up of benches.

Responding to a petition, the apex court said that that CJI&nbsp;is the "first among equals".

Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgment for the bench, referred to constitutional schemes and said: "the Chief Justice of India is first among equals and has the authority to decide allocation of cases and setting up of benches".

The apex court's judgement came in response to a petition filed by a lawyer of the Allahabad High Court, Ashok Pande.

A bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud dismissed a PIL seeking framing of guidelines for rational and transparent allocation of cases and constitution of benches to hear them.

Since the CJI is a high constitutional functionary, there cannot be "any distrust about the responsibilities he discharges" to ensure that the Supreme Court to carries out the work required under the Constitution, the order stated.

The petition was filed following the January 12th press conference held by the four Supreme Court judges - &nbsp;Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph.&nbsp;The judges had alleged improper allocation of cases by the CJI.

The judges had held that rules should be framed for constituting benches and allocating jurisdiction to different bench&nbsp;in the Supreme Court and the High Court.

During the controversial press conference in January, Justice Chelameshwar had said democracy in this country would not survive without an institution as important as the Supreme Court, and a free judiciary.&nbsp;

"We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution," the judges had said.

The Supreme Court of India has directed that the Chief Justice of India is at the top of the institution and is the first to decide on matters related to allocation of cases and setting up of benches

The Supreme Court said today that the post of Chief Justice of India(CJI) is the top institution and he is the first to decide on matters related to allocation of cases and setting up of benches. Responding to a petition, the apex court said that that CJI is the "first among equals". Justice Chandrachud, writing the judgment for the bench, referred to constitutional schemes and said: "the Chief Justice of India is first among equals and has the authority to decide allocation of cases and setting up of benches". The apex court's judgement came in response to a petition filed by a lawyer of the Allahabad High Court, Ashok Pande. A bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud dismissed a PIL seeking framing of guidelines for rational and transparent allocation of cases and constitution of benches to hear them. Since the CJI is a high constitutional functionary, there cannot be "any distrust about the responsibilities he discharges" to ensure that the Supreme Court to carries out the work required under the Constitution, the order stated. The petition was filed following the January 12th press conference held by the four Supreme Court judges - Justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph. The judges had alleged improper allocation of cases by the CJI. The judges had held that rules should be framed for constituting benches and allocating jurisdiction to different bench in the Supreme Court and the High Court. During the controversial press conference in January, Justice Chelameshwar had said democracy in this country would not survive without an institution as important as the Supreme Court, and a free judiciary. "We owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution," the judges had said.

Chief Justice of India is first among equals: Supreme Court

A lawyers' body has expressed grave concern over the issues raised by Supreme Court's senior-most judge Justice J Chelameswar in a letter to the Chief Justice of India urging him to convene a full court to deal with the alleged executive interference in the judiciary.

"The letter of Justice Chelameswar reveals direct interference of central government in the process of appointment of judges in the High Court. The letter clearly shows that the independence of the Judiciary is in peril now," the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) said in a statement.

It said that lawyers across the country were concerned with the latest revelations made in the letter in which Justice Chelameswar has questioned the probe initiated by Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari against District and Sessions Judge Krishna Bhat at the request of the Ministry of Law and Justice, despite his name being recommended for elevation twice by the Collegium.

"More painful for the democracy is that the present Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court has obediently succumbed to the Executive pressure. The present govt is not only deliberately destroying the independence of judiciary but few judges are also abetting it," a statement, released by AILU President and senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and General Secretary Som Dutta Sharma, said.

Condemning the move of inquiry against a recommender of the collegium, the AILU said if the collegium's recommendations cannot be accepted, these should have been referred to the apex court for reconsideration.

"A judge is oath-bound to uphold the Constitution without favour and fear. Chief Justice of Karnataka has failed in the instant case to stick to his oath. It's time to raise voice to save both democracy and the Constitution," the statement said.

Justice Chelameswar had shot off a letter on March 21 to the CJI urging him to consider convening a full court to take up the issue of alleged executive interference in the judiciary. He had also cautioned that "the bonhomie between the judiciary and the government in any State sounds the death knell to democracy".

Justice Chelameswar, who had held the unprecedented January 12 press conference along with three other senior judges raising issues including the allocation of cases by the CJI, had said, "We, the judges of the Supreme

Court of India, is being accused of ceding our independence and our institutional integrity to the Executive's incremental encroachment.

"The executive is always impatient and brooks no disobedience even of the judiciary if it can. Attempts were always made to treat the Chief Justices as the Departmental Heads in the Secretariat. So much for our independence and pre-eminence' as a distinct State organ."

A lawyers' body has expressed grave concern over the issues raised by Supreme Court's senior-most judge Justice J Chelameswar in a letter to the Chief Justice of India urging him to convene a full court to deal with the alleged executive interference in the judiciary

A lawyers' body has expressed grave concern over the issues raised by Supreme Court's senior-most judge Justice J Chelameswar in a letter to the Chief Justice of India urging him to convene a full court to deal with the alleged executive interference in the judiciary. "The letter of Justice Chelameswar reveals direct interference of central government in the process of appointment of judges in the High Court. The letter clearly shows that the independence of the Judiciary is in peril now," the All India Lawyers Union (AILU) said in a statement. It said that lawyers across the country were concerned with the latest revelations made in the letter in which Justice Chelameswar has questioned the probe initiated by Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari against District and Sessions Judge Krishna Bhat at the request of the Ministry of Law and Justice, despite his name being recommended for elevation twice by the Collegium. "More painful for the democracy is that the present Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court has obediently succumbed to the Executive pressure. The present govt is not only deliberately destroying the independence of judiciary but few judges are also abetting it," a statement, released by AILU President and senior advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and General Secretary Som Dutta Sharma, said. Condemning the move of inquiry against a recommender of the collegium, the AILU said if the collegium's recommendations cannot be accepted, these should have been referred to the apex court for reconsideration. "A judge is oath-bound to uphold the Constitution without favour and fear. Chief Justice of Karnataka has failed in the instant case to stick to his oath. It's time to raise voice to save both democracy and the Constitution," the statement said. Justice Chelameswar had shot off a letter on March 21 to the CJI urging him to consider convening a full court to take up the issue of alleged executive interference in the judiciary. He had also cautioned that "the bonhomie between the judiciary and the government in any State sounds the death knell to democracy". Justice Chelameswar, who had held the unprecedented January 12 press conference along with three other senior judges raising issues including the allocation of cases by the CJI, had said, "We, the judges of the Supreme Court of India, is being accused of ceding our independence and our institutional integrity to the Executive's incremental encroachment. "The executive is always impatient and brooks no disobedience even of the judiciary if it can. Attempts were always made to treat the Chief Justices as the Departmental Heads in the Secretariat. So much for our independence and pre-eminence' as a distinct State organ."

Lawyers' body concerned over the revelations made by SC judge Chelameswar

The opposition has begun the process of initiating impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The development was confirmed by a number of Opposition leaders on Tuesday.&nbsp;

"The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India," NCP leader Majeed Memon said. &nbsp;

Another NCP parliamentarian D P Tripathi said, "I have signed it and others are also signing it and the process is going on."

Tripathi said it is not just corruption, but "the charges are far more serious" and it emanates from the letter that four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court had earlier written stating that there was danger to the independence of judiciary.

Tripathi confirmed that among the signatories to the notice were members of NCP, CPI-M, CPI and others, and indicated that some Congress leaders too had signed it.&nbsp;

The Samajwadi Party too is supporting the move. "The Samajwadi Party stands with the impeachment motion, which is about bringing independence and unquestionable integrity to the judiciary," SP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari told ANI.&nbsp;

As is West Bengal chief minister and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee, who told reporters: “I can only say that Trinamool Congress will go with whatever decision the other parties take on the impeachment of the CJI. After all, one cannot ignore what the four judges had to say.”

Banerjee's statement came after her meeting — to discuss a possible impeachment motion against the CJI — earlier in the day with senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

'The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India,' NCP leader Majeed Memon said.

The opposition has begun the process of initiating impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The development was confirmed by a number of Opposition leaders on Tuesday. "The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India," NCP leader Majeed Memon said. Another NCP parliamentarian D P Tripathi said, "I have signed it and others are also signing it and the process is going on." Tripathi said it is not just corruption, but "the charges are far more serious" and it emanates from the letter that four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court had earlier written stating that there was danger to the independence of judiciary. Tripathi confirmed that among the signatories to the notice were members of NCP, CPI-M, CPI and others, and indicated that some Congress leaders too had signed it. The Samajwadi Party too is supporting the move. "The Samajwadi Party stands with the impeachment motion, which is about bringing independence and unquestionable integrity to the judiciary," SP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari told ANI. As is West Bengal chief minister and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee, who told reporters: “I can only say that Trinamool Congress will go with whatever decision the other parties take on the impeachment of the CJI. After all, one cannot ignore what the four judges had to say.” Banerjee's statement came after her meeting — to discuss a possible impeachment motion against the CJI — earlier in the day with senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan. (With inputs from PTI)

Opposition begins gathering signatures to impeach Chief Justice of India

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice Dipak Misra directed the CBSE to upload the information on their website.

Earlier in the day, UIDAI had told the apex court that it has not authorised CBSE to mandatorily take Aadhaar number of students to get themselves enroled for appearing in NEET 2018 examination.

Attorney General K K Venugopal had said he has instructions from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that like in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and Assam other identity proofs like passport, voter card and ration card can be used by the CBSE for enroling the students in the examination.

The UIDAI&#39;s remarks came on a plea challenging the decision of CBSE seeking mandatorily the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number from students who are aspiring to take up the NEET 2018 examination.

The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea on February 27. 
 
The appeal in Supreme Court challenges the order of Gujarat High Court.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams

The Supreme Court today directed the CBSE not to make Aadhaar number mandatory for enrolment of students appearing in NEET 2018 and other all-India exams. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief justice Dipak Misra directed the CBSE to upload the information on their website. Earlier in the day, UIDAI had told the apex court that it has not authorised CBSE to mandatorily take Aadhaar number of students to get themselves enroled for appearing in NEET 2018 examination. Attorney General K K Venugopal had said he has instructions from Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that like in Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya and Assam other identity proofs like passport, voter card and ration card can be used by the CBSE for enroling the students in the examination. The UIDAI's remarks came on a plea challenging the decision of CBSE seeking mandatorily the Aadhaar number or Aadhaar enrolment number from students who are aspiring to take up the NEET 2018 examination. The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the plea on February 27. The appeal in Supreme Court challenges the order of Gujarat High Court.

Aadhaar not mandatory for students taking all-India examinations: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today adopted a roster system for the allocation of matters to judges with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra deciding to keep to himself the public interest litigation (PIL) cases.&nbsp;

The order of the CJI was made public on the official website of the apex court.

The 13-page notification said a roster of the work for fresh cases notified under the order of the chief justice of India will come into effect from February 5 till further orders.

The decision to make public the roster system for the allocation of matters assumes significance as four seniormost judges -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- in their January 12 press conference had questioned the allocation of sensitive PILs and important cases to the judges junior in seniority.

The notification has given the description of matters that would be allocated to the benches headed by the CJI, justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur, Joseph, A K Sikri, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, A K Goel and R F Nariman.

The names of these 12 judges are in the order of their seniority.&nbsp;

The decision to make public the roster system for the allocation of matters assumes significance as four seniormost judges in their January 12 press conference had questioned the allocation of sensitive PILs and important cases to the judges junior in seniority

The Supreme Court today adopted a roster system for the allocation of matters to judges with Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra deciding to keep to himself the public interest litigation (PIL) cases. The order of the CJI was made public on the official website of the apex court. The 13-page notification said a roster of the work for fresh cases notified under the order of the chief justice of India will come into effect from February 5 till further orders. The decision to make public the roster system for the allocation of matters assumes significance as four seniormost judges -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- in their January 12 press conference had questioned the allocation of sensitive PILs and important cases to the judges junior in seniority. The notification has given the description of matters that would be allocated to the benches headed by the CJI, justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur, Joseph, A K Sikri, S A Bobde, R K Agrawal, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra, A K Goel and R F Nariman. The names of these 12 judges are in the order of their seniority.

Supreme Court adopts roster system for allocation of matters, CJI keeps PIL cases

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra met the with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court - &nbsp;Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph in order to resolve issues raised by them during a press conference last week.

Misra had earlier met the senior judges a few days ago as well in a bid to quell differences over a number of issues raised by them on January 12th in an open press conference.

The meeting with the four judges lasted around 10-15 minutes before the resumption of court proceedings at 10:30 am.

The judges had alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to &quot;select benches&quot; headed by junior judges in the last few months.&nbsp;

The judges had said the issues involving administration of the Supreme Court were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

Later, the judges had released a letter detailing cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;. 
&nbsp;

The judges had alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to "select benches" headed by junior judges in the last few months.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra met the with four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph in order to resolve issues raised by them during a press conference last week. Misra had earlier met the senior judges a few days ago as well in a bid to quell differences over a number of issues raised by them on January 12th in an open press conference. The meeting with the four judges lasted around 10-15 minutes before the resumption of court proceedings at 10:30 am. The judges had alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to "select benches" headed by junior judges in the last few months. The judges had said the issues involving administration of the Supreme Court were serious enough to prompt them to go public. Later, the judges had released a letter detailing cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment".

CJI Dipak Misra meets 4 Supreme Court judges to diffuse crisis

A body comprising activists from various fields today said it has handed over a complaint against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the five seniormost Supreme Court judges over alleged misconduct in connection with the medical college bribery case.

The Convenor of Campaign for Judical Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), which held a press conference, repeated all the allegations it had raised in its PIL in the case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court with an exemplary cost of Rs 25 lakh.

The petition was dismissed on December 1 last year.

However, in the presser held by advocate Prashant Bhushan and Anjali Bharadwaj, convenor and member of executive committee of CJAR respectively, they once again raked up the medical college scam in which it was alleged that bribes were paid in the name of judges.

The apex court had dismissed the plea of CJAR for Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the bribery case in which the CBI filed an FIR against ex-judge of Orissa high court I M Quddusi.

Quddusi and a few others were arrested in the case by the CBI and later granted bail by a court. The medical college bribery case related to Prasad Education Trust.

Referring to the in-house procedure to deal with the complaints against judges of the apex court and high courts, Bhushan said they have to be sent to the CJI but no procedure has been laid down for enquiring into a complaint against the head of the judiciary.

The complaint was sent to the four judges who have mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI. It was also sent to Arjan Kumar Sikri. The four dissenting judges were Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Bhimarao Lokur and Kurian Joseph.

Bhushan alleged that from the recorded conversation of the accused, including Qudussi, it was clear that there was a serious conspiracy of bribe in the medical college scam case.

However, he clarified that he was not alleging that the CJI was involved in the conspiracy and said that a thorough investigation was required in it.

While dismissing the petition of CJAR, the three-judge bench of Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra and A M Khanwilkar had said &quot;the petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalising the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability.

&quot;What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than subserving it.&quot;&nbsp;

The five judges were asked to probe alleged misconduct in the medical college bribery case

A body comprising activists from various fields today said it has handed over a complaint against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the five seniormost Supreme Court judges over alleged misconduct in connection with the medical college bribery case. The Convenor of Campaign for Judical Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), which held a press conference, repeated all the allegations it had raised in its PIL in the case that was dismissed by the Supreme Court with an exemplary cost of Rs 25 lakh. The petition was dismissed on December 1 last year. However, in the presser held by advocate Prashant Bhushan and Anjali Bharadwaj, convenor and member of executive committee of CJAR respectively, they once again raked up the medical college scam in which it was alleged that bribes were paid in the name of judges. The apex court had dismissed the plea of CJAR for Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the bribery case in which the CBI filed an FIR against ex-judge of Orissa high court I M Quddusi. Quddusi and a few others were arrested in the case by the CBI and later granted bail by a court. The medical college bribery case related to Prasad Education Trust. Referring to the in-house procedure to deal with the complaints against judges of the apex court and high courts, Bhushan said they have to be sent to the CJI but no procedure has been laid down for enquiring into a complaint against the head of the judiciary. The complaint was sent to the four judges who have mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI. It was also sent to Arjan Kumar Sikri. The four dissenting judges were Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Bhimarao Lokur and Kurian Joseph. Bhushan alleged that from the recorded conversation of the accused, including Qudussi, it was clear that there was a serious conspiracy of bribe in the medical college scam case. However, he clarified that he was not alleging that the CJI was involved in the conspiracy and said that a thorough investigation was required in it. While dismissing the petition of CJAR, the three-judge bench of Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra and A M Khanwilkar had said "the petition is not only wholly frivolous, but contemptuous, unwarranted, aims at scandalising the highest judicial system of the country, without any reasonable basis and filed in an irresponsible manner, that too by a body of persons professing to espouse the cause of accountability. "What an irony of fate, the petitioner has itself forgotten its accountability and filing of such petition may entail in ultimate debarment of such petitioners from filing so-called public interest litigation which in fact has caused more injury to cause of public than subserving it."

CJAR hands over complaint against CJI to SC's 5 most senior judges

The crisis in Supreme Court is over. Attorney General K K Venugopal has said there was an informal meeting this morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four Supreme Court judges who took on him publicly where the disputes were resolved.

&quot;All disputes settled, things are normal (now),&rdquo; Venugopal said. The Attorney General termed these developments as &quot;a storm in a tea cup&quot;.

He has also confirmed that the courts are functioning normally.

On January 12, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/judges-who-rebelled-against-cji-resume-work-in-supreme-court-29559">four senior judges of the Supreme Court</a> - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - took on CJI Misra in an extraordinary press conference.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-met-cji-in-congenial-atmosphere-everything-will-be-sorted-out-says-bar-council-29503">Also read: &#39;Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,&#39; says Bar Council </a>

They alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to &quot;select benches&quot; headed by junior judges in the last few months. That charge was intended to directly target Chief Justice Misra.

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

&quot;The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference.

The justices <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488">released a letter</a> they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;.

On January 12, four senior judges of the Supreme Court - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - took on CJI Misra in an extraordinary press conference.

The crisis in Supreme Court is over. Attorney General K K Venugopal has said there was an informal meeting this morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four Supreme Court judges who took on him publicly where the disputes were resolved. "All disputes settled, things are normal (now),” Venugopal said. The Attorney General termed these developments as "a storm in a tea cup". He has also confirmed that the courts are functioning normally. On January 12, four senior judges of the Supreme Court - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - took on CJI Misra in an extraordinary press conference. Also read: 'Met Chief Justice in congenial atmosphere, everything will be sorted out,' says Bar Council They alleged that sensitive and important cases were being assigned to "select benches" headed by junior judges in the last few months. That charge was intended to directly target Chief Justice Misra. The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference. The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment".

Crisis in Supreme Court over: Attorney General K K Venugopal

Four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, today wrote an open letter to the chief justice of India, saying they agree with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over allocation of cases and the crisis needs to be resolved &quot;within the judiciary&quot;.

The letter by former apex court judge P B Sawant, ex- chief justice of Delhi High Court A P Shah, former Madras High Court judge K Chandru and ex-Bombay High Court judge H Suresh was given to the media. It also went viral on social media.

Justice Shah confirmed having written an open letter along with the other retired judges and told PTI, &quot;We have written the open letter which the other judges named in the letter have also consented to.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The four retired judges said the crisis needs to be resolved &#39;within the judiciary&#39;</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The four retired judges said the crisis needs to be resolved 'within the judiciary'" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

He said that the view expressed by the retired judges is &quot;quite similar to the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) that till this crisis is resolved, the important matters should be listed before a five-judge Constitution bench of senior judges&quot;.

Justice Shah said that earlier he was not sure about the consent given by the other three judges and, therefore, he initially denied having written any letter but now all of them have given consent to it.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">&#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 Supreme Court judges in first-ever open meet</a>

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324" target="_blank">Let the nation decide on CJI&#39;s impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference</a>

The letter quoted the judges as having said, &quot;The four senior puisne Judges of the Supreme Court have brought to light a serious issue regarding the manner of allocation of cases, particularly sensitive cases, to various benches of the Supreme Court.

&quot;They have expressed a grave concern that cases are not being allocated in a proper manner and are being allocated arbitrarily to particular designated benches, often headed by junior judges, in an arbitrary manner. This is having a very deleterious effect on the administration of justice and the rule of law.&quot;

The four retired judges said that they agree with the four judges of top court that though the CJI is the master of roster and can designate benches for allocation of work but this does not mean that it can be done in an &quot;arbitrary manner&quot; such that, &quot;sensitive and important cases&quot; are sent to &quot;hand-picked benches&quot; of junior judges by the chief justice.

&quot;This issue needs to be resolved and clear rules and norms must be laid down for allocation of benches and distribution of cases, which are rational, fair and transparent,&quot; they said, adding that this must be done &quot;immediately to restore public confidence&quot; in the judiciary and in the Supreme Court.

The letter further said that &quot;however till that is done, it is important that all sensitive and important cases including pending ones, be dealt with by a Constitution bench of the five seniormost judges of this Court&quot;.

It added, &quot;Only such measures would assure the people that the Supreme Court is functioning in a fair and transparent manner and that the power of the Chief Justice as master of roster is not being misused to achieve a particular result in important and sensitive cases. We, therefore, urge you to take immediate steps in this regard.&quot;&nbsp;

The four retired judges, including one from the Supreme Court, said they agree with the issues raised by the Supreme Court judges

Four retired judges, including an ex-Supreme Court judge, today wrote an open letter to the chief justice of India, saying they agree with the issues raised by the four apex court judges over allocation of cases and the crisis needs to be resolved "within the judiciary". The letter by former apex court judge P B Sawant, ex- chief justice of Delhi High Court A P Shah, former Madras High Court judge K Chandru and ex-Bombay High Court judge H Suresh was given to the media. It also went viral on social media. Justice Shah confirmed having written an open letter along with the other retired judges and told PTI, "We have written the open letter which the other judges named in the letter have also consented to." The four retired judges said the crisis needs to be resolved 'within the judiciary' × He said that the view expressed by the retired judges is "quite similar to the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) that till this crisis is resolved, the important matters should be listed before a five-judge Constitution bench of senior judges". Justice Shah said that earlier he was not sure about the consent given by the other three judges and, therefore, he initially denied having written any letter but now all of them have given consent to it. Also read: 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 Supreme Court judges in first-ever open meet Also read: Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference The letter quoted the judges as having said, "The four senior puisne Judges of the Supreme Court have brought to light a serious issue regarding the manner of allocation of cases, particularly sensitive cases, to various benches of the Supreme Court. "They have expressed a grave concern that cases are not being allocated in a proper manner and are being allocated arbitrarily to particular designated benches, often headed by junior judges, in an arbitrary manner. This is having a very deleterious effect on the administration of justice and the rule of law." The four retired judges said that they agree with the four judges of top court that though the CJI is the master of roster and can designate benches for allocation of work but this does not mean that it can be done in an "arbitrary manner" such that, "sensitive and important cases" are sent to "hand-picked benches" of junior judges by the chief justice. "This issue needs to be resolved and clear rules and norms must be laid down for allocation of benches and distribution of cases, which are rational, fair and transparent," they said, adding that this must be done "immediately to restore public confidence" in the judiciary and in the Supreme Court. The letter further said that "however till that is done, it is important that all sensitive and important cases including pending ones, be dealt with by a Constitution bench of the five seniormost judges of this Court". It added, "Only such measures would assure the people that the Supreme Court is functioning in a fair and transparent manner and that the power of the Chief Justice as master of roster is not being misused to achieve a particular result in important and sensitive cases. We, therefore, urge you to take immediate steps in this regard."

Supreme Court crisis: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI

Days after Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was accused of lack of transparency in the selection of judges to try cases, he may&nbsp;meet&nbsp;the rebel judges of the supreme court on Sunday to resolve the problems, media reports said.

One of the rebel judges, Justice Kurian Joesph also told a local news channel that they &quot;stood up for justice and judiciary and an issue came to attention and it will certainly be solved.&quot;

A&nbsp;formal meeting is also scheduled at 7:30 in the evening today, between a team from the Bar Council of India, the regulatory body of lawyers and the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra.

The seven-member panel will also&nbsp;meet&nbsp;other judges of the top court through the day to seek their opinion on resolving the unprecedented crisis that has hit the judiciary.

Meanwhile, Bar Council members met Justice Chelameswar at his residence, and said that they &quot;will react after meeting Chief Justice of India and other three judges in the evening.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Bar Council of India delegation leaves after meeting Justice Chelameswar, member says &#39;will react after meeting Chief Justice of India &amp; other three judges in the evening&#39; <a href="https://t.co/G2bGdXyn74">pic.twitter.com/G2bGdXyn74</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952435506633043968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 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">&times;</a></div>

Four senior-most judges of the supreme court, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, held a conference on Friday criticising Dipak Misra for the distribution of cases and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts.&nbsp;

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. However,&nbsp;they also claimed that the issue was raised internally but after receiving an&nbsp;unsatisfactory response they went public with the issues.

The conference sent shock waves across the country as during the conference the chief justices claimed that if the &quot;equanimity does not get maintained the democracy won&#39;t survive in the country&quot;

The bar council has expressed strong disapproval saying that &quot;judges should not have held a press conference on a &quot;minor issue of roster&quot;. He said a delegation from the council would meet the senior judges and the chief justice of India and request them not to bring such issues before the public.&quot;

One of the rebel judges, Justice Kurian Joesph also told a local news channel that they 'stood up for justice and judiciary and an issue came to attention and it will certainly be solved'

Days after Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was accused of lack of transparency in the selection of judges to try cases, he may meet the rebel judges of the supreme court on Sunday to resolve the problems, media reports said. One of the rebel judges, Justice Kurian Joesph also told a local news channel that they "stood up for justice and judiciary and an issue came to attention and it will certainly be solved." A formal meeting is also scheduled at 7:30 in the evening today, between a team from the Bar Council of India, the regulatory body of lawyers and the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra. The seven-member panel will also meet other judges of the top court through the day to seek their opinion on resolving the unprecedented crisis that has hit the judiciary. Meanwhile, Bar Council members met Justice Chelameswar at his residence, and said that they "will react after meeting Chief Justice of India and other three judges in the evening." Bar Council of India delegation leaves after meeting Justice Chelameswar, member says 'will react after meeting Chief Justice of India & other three judges in the evening' pic.twitter.com/G2bGdXyn74 — ANI (@ANI) January 14, 2018 × Four senior-most judges of the supreme court, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, held a conference on Friday criticising Dipak Misra for the distribution of cases and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts. The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. However, they also claimed that the issue was raised internally but after receiving an unsatisfactory response they went public with the issues. The conference sent shock waves across the country as during the conference the chief justices claimed that if the "equanimity does not get maintained the democracy won't survive in the country" The bar council has expressed strong disapproval saying that "judges should not have held a press conference on a "minor issue of roster". He said a delegation from the council would meet the senior judges and the chief justice of India and request them not to bring such issues before the public."

Chief Justice of India to meet rebel judges today: Reports

The Bar Council of India (BCI) Saturday cautioned the political parties and leaders from taking an &quot;undue advantage&quot; of the situation, following a virtual revolt of four senior Supreme Court judges against the chief justice of India (CJI).

It said the four seniormost judges going public with their differences with the CJI had given an opportunity to the political parties and leaders to interfere in the affairs of the judiciary.

Without taking any name, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra said, &quot;No political party or leader should take an undue advantage of the situation arising out of the press conference of the four senior Supreme Court judges.&quot;

The reference to political parties and leaders assumes significance as Congress president Rahul Gandhi had yesterday addressed the media after the judges went public with their grievances.

&quot;I think the points raised by the four judges are extremely important. They have mentioned that there is a threat to democracy. It needs to be looked into carefully,&quot; Gandhi had said.

At an emergency meeting called by the BCI&#39;s governing body, comprising 17 members, a resolution was passed, saying a seven-member committee would meet all the apex court judges tomorrow (January 14), barring the five seniormost judges, to discuss the present crisis.

However, Mishra subsequently clarified that the members of the committee would also meet the four judges and, in the end, the CJI.

The BCI said it was of the view that such issues should not be made public.

&quot;Whatever differences the judges have regarding the roster or allocation of cases, should be resolved through an in-house mechanism, without airing views in public,&quot; Mishra said.

He added that the BCI welcomed the government&#39;s decision not to get involved in the internal matters of the top court.

&quot;The law minister has already said that the government will not interfere in the matter. The bar welcomes the decision,&quot; Mishra said, adding that as for the Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of judges to the higher courts, &quot;it must be finalised at the earliest&quot;.

He said all these issues had to be sorted out through an in-house mechanism and that the matter should not to be politicised.

In an unprecedented move, four senior Supreme Court judges -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had mounted a virtual revolt against CJI Dipak Misra at a press meet in Delhi yesterday, raising questions on &quot;selective&quot; case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.&nbsp;

The reference to political parties and leaders assumes significance as Congress president Rahul Gandhi had yesterday addressed the media after the judges went public with their grievances.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) Saturday cautioned the political parties and leaders from taking an "undue advantage" of the situation, following a virtual revolt of four senior Supreme Court judges against the chief justice of India (CJI). It said the four seniormost judges going public with their differences with the CJI had given an opportunity to the political parties and leaders to interfere in the affairs of the judiciary. Without taking any name, BCI chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra said, "No political party or leader should take an undue advantage of the situation arising out of the press conference of the four senior Supreme Court judges." The reference to political parties and leaders assumes significance as Congress president Rahul Gandhi had yesterday addressed the media after the judges went public with their grievances. "I think the points raised by the four judges are extremely important. They have mentioned that there is a threat to democracy. It needs to be looked into carefully," Gandhi had said. At an emergency meeting called by the BCI's governing body, comprising 17 members, a resolution was passed, saying a seven-member committee would meet all the apex court judges tomorrow (January 14), barring the five seniormost judges, to discuss the present crisis. However, Mishra subsequently clarified that the members of the committee would also meet the four judges and, in the end, the CJI. The BCI said it was of the view that such issues should not be made public. "Whatever differences the judges have regarding the roster or allocation of cases, should be resolved through an in-house mechanism, without airing views in public," Mishra said. He added that the BCI welcomed the government's decision not to get involved in the internal matters of the top court. "The law minister has already said that the government will not interfere in the matter. The bar welcomes the decision," Mishra said, adding that as for the Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of judges to the higher courts, "it must be finalised at the earliest". He said all these issues had to be sorted out through an in-house mechanism and that the matter should not to be politicised. In an unprecedented move, four senior Supreme Court judges -- justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had mounted a virtual revolt against CJI Dipak Misra at a press meet in Delhi yesterday, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.

Bar Council of India cautions parties, leaders against meddling with judiciary

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray on Saturday termed SC judges presser against Chief Justice of India as &nbsp;&#39;disturbing&#39; and sought action against those judges but we should try to understand as to why the four judges have taken such a step.

The Shiv Sena said one should try to understand the reason behind the mutiny of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court against the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

With the judges turning against the judiciary itself, Thackeray opined that faith of the people in Judiciary will decrease.

&quot;All 4 pillars of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other, it will collapse,&quot; he added.

In the press conference held yesterday, Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurien Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and Jasti Chelameswar questioned the conduct of the CJI, alleging that selective Benches were being appointed to preside over certain cases in the apex court.

The case of the CBI judge Justice Loya&#39;s death is one among the certain cases hinted by the four judges.

&quot;If there is anything suspicious behind the death of Justice Loya, it should come out,&quot; Thackeray said.

&quot;All the four pillar of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other it will all collapse,&quot; the Shiv Sena chief further remarked.

Thackeray also took a swipe at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), &quot;What is happening now is just to win elections and make their Chief Ministers and put their people at important posts, but their duties towards the people are ignored.&quot;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(With ANI inputs)&nbsp;

With the judges turning against the judiciary itself, Thackeray opined that faith of the people in Judiciary will decrease.

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray on Saturday termed SC judges presser against Chief Justice of India as 'disturbing' and sought action against those judges but we should try to understand as to why the four judges have taken such a step. The Shiv Sena said one should try to understand the reason behind the mutiny of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court against the Chief Justice of India (CJI). With the judges turning against the judiciary itself, Thackeray opined that faith of the people in Judiciary will decrease. "All 4 pillars of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other, it will collapse," he added. In the press conference held yesterday, Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurien Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and Jasti Chelameswar questioned the conduct of the CJI, alleging that selective Benches were being appointed to preside over certain cases in the apex court. The case of the CBI judge Justice Loya's death is one among the certain cases hinted by the four judges. "If there is anything suspicious behind the death of Justice Loya, it should come out," Thackeray said. "All the four pillar of democracy should stand independently, if they fall on each other it will all collapse," the Shiv Sena chief further remarked. Thackeray also took a swipe at the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), "What is happening now is just to win elections and make their Chief Ministers and put their people at important posts, but their duties towards the people are ignored." (With ANI inputs)

SC judges' presser against CJI 'disturbing': Shiv Sena

The Bar Council of India will form a 7-member delegation to mediate with the four Supreme Court judges, who went public about their differences with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra on Friday, in order to find a solution to the issue at the earliest. &nbsp;

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/press-conference-by-four-supreme-court-judges-could-have-been-avoided-attorney-general-29367">7-member delegation</a> will meet the four Supreme Court judges.&nbsp;

&#39;&#39;We have unanimously decided to form a 7-member delegation of the Council who will meet <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-bar-association-to-hold-meeting-over-allegations-of-judges-against-chief-justice-29386">Hon. judges of the Supreme Court</a>. We want that the matter be solved at the earliest,&#39;&#39; said Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India.&nbsp;

Mishra lamented the fact that the rift in the judiciary had given an opportunity to Rahul Gandhi and other political parties talk about the judiciary.

&#39;&#39;We&#39;ve given an opportunity to Rahul Gandhi &amp; political parties to talk about our judiciary, it&#39;s unfortunate,&#39;&#39; Mishra said.

He appealed to the political parties not to politicise the issue.

&#39;&#39;On behalf of Bar Council of India, I request him (Rahul Gandhi) and other political parties to not politicise the matter,&#39;&#39; Mishra said.&nbsp;

As far as Memorandum of procedure (MOP) is concerned, it must be finalised at the earliest in a proper manner, he said and added that they will write a letter to the government for the same but is not that big a matter to be brought in public. &nbsp;

He also appreciated the government&#39;s stand on the matter by saying that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad have said that it&#39;s the internal matter of the judiciary.

Prime Minister and law minister had said yesterday itself that it is judiciary&#39;s internal matter and govt won&#39;t be interfering in the matter, and &#39;&#39;we appreciate the government&#39;s stand&#39;&#39;, he said.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Supreme Court will not hear PIL seeking probe into the alleged mysterious death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya on Monday, as one of the SC judges M Shantanagoudar is on leave.

On Friday, in an unprecedented development, the top court&#39;s four next highest-ranking judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts, they added.&nbsp;

Also read: &#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

&quot;The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference.

The judges did not give specific details of their concerns during the press conference, but said: &quot;it is an issue of assignment of a case&quot;.&nbsp;

When reporters asked whether it was related to the case of a lower court judge B Loya, who died in December 2014 while hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh &#39;fake encounter&#39; case, one of the four judges said &quot;yes&quot;. BJP President Amit Shah is also an accused in the case.

The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution&quot; that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational &quot;basis for such assignment&quot;.

The 7-member delegation will meet the four Supreme Court judges.

The Bar Council of India will form a 7-member delegation to mediate with the four Supreme Court judges, who went public about their differences with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra on Friday, in order to find a solution to the issue at the earliest. The 7-member delegation will meet the four Supreme Court judges. ''We have unanimously decided to form a 7-member delegation of the Council who will meet Hon. judges of the Supreme Court. We want that the matter be solved at the earliest,'' said Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India. Mishra lamented the fact that the rift in the judiciary had given an opportunity to Rahul Gandhi and other political parties talk about the judiciary. ''We've given an opportunity to Rahul Gandhi & political parties to talk about our judiciary, it's unfortunate,'' Mishra said. He appealed to the political parties not to politicise the issue. ''On behalf of Bar Council of India, I request him (Rahul Gandhi) and other political parties to not politicise the matter,'' Mishra said. As far as Memorandum of procedure (MOP) is concerned, it must be finalised at the earliest in a proper manner, he said and added that they will write a letter to the government for the same but is not that big a matter to be brought in public. He also appreciated the government's stand on the matter by saying that the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad have said that it's the internal matter of the judiciary. Prime Minister and law minister had said yesterday itself that it is judiciary's internal matter and govt won't be interfering in the matter, and ''we appreciate the government's stand'', he said. Meanwhile, Supreme Court will not hear PIL seeking probe into the alleged mysterious death of Special CBI Judge BH Loya on Monday, as one of the SC judges M Shantanagoudar is on leave. On Friday, in an unprecedented development, the top court's four next highest-ranking judges, Justices Kurian Joseph, Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts, they added. Also read: 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Jasti Chelameswar told a news conference. The judges did not give specific details of their concerns during the press conference, but said: "it is an issue of assignment of a case". When reporters asked whether it was related to the case of a lower court judge B Loya, who died in December 2014 while hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh 'fake encounter' case, one of the four judges said "yes". BJP President Amit Shah is also an accused in the case. The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of "far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without rational "basis for such assignment".

Judicial rift: Bar Council forms 7-member committee to resolve the matter

The current <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324" target="_blank">Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra&nbsp;</a>was born on October 3, 1953, in Cuttack, Odisha.

He was appointed as the CJI by President Ram Nath Kovind on August 28, 2017.&nbsp;

Justice Misra succeeded Justice JS Khehar&nbsp;as the 45th chief justice of India.

He has previously served as the Chief Justice of Patna and Delhi High Courts.

He was also the judge of the Supreme Court before being appointed as the Chief Justice of India.&nbsp;

Justice Misra has been part of several remarkable judgements.

He awarded death penalty to the four convicts in the brutal Delhi gang rape.&nbsp;

He also led the bench which rejected Yakub Memon&#39;s appeal against his death penalty. Yakub Memon was the convict in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. After his decision of turning&nbsp;down the death sentence of the serial bomb blast convict the justice had received death threats through an anonymous letter which said: &quot;irrespective of the protection you may avail, we will eliminate you.&quot;&nbsp;

CJI Dipak Misra came into controversy on Friday after four sitting <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/all-you-should-know-about-sc-judges-who-addressed-media-today-29348" target="_blank">Supreme Court judges</a> Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Jasti Chelameswar&nbsp;and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">differences&nbsp;with him</a>.

The judges criticised Supreme Court&#39;s distribution of cases to judges and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">raised concerns</a>&nbsp;about judicial appointments.

&nbsp;

CJI Dipak Misra came into controversy on Friday after four sitting Supreme Court judges addressed the media for the first time on differences with him

The current Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was born on October 3, 1953, in Cuttack, Odisha. He was appointed as the CJI by President Ram Nath Kovind on August 28, 2017. Justice Misra succeeded Justice JS Khehar as the 45th chief justice of India. He has previously served as the Chief Justice of Patna and Delhi High Courts. He was also the judge of the Supreme Court before being appointed as the Chief Justice of India. Justice Misra has been part of several remarkable judgements. He awarded death penalty to the four convicts in the brutal Delhi gang rape. He also led the bench which rejected Yakub Memon's appeal against his death penalty. Yakub Memon was the convict in the 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts. After his decision of turning down the death sentence of the serial bomb blast convict the justice had received death threats through an anonymous letter which said: "irrespective of the protection you may avail, we will eliminate you." CJI Dipak Misra came into controversy on Friday after four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences with him. The judges criticised Supreme Court's distribution of cases to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an unprecedented press meeting where they raised questions about the working of the top court. In a seven-page letter, the judges also made some other claims.

&quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said. The other three judges which were part of the open meet were Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Gogoi.

&quot;In this situation, democracy won&#39;t survive,&quot; Justice Chelameswar declared.

Here is the full text of the letter:

Dear Chief Justice,

It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India.

From the date of establishment of the three chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this court which came into existence almost a century after the above mentioned courts. These traditions have their roots in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and practice.

One of the well settled principles is that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with a privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which member/bench of this court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only the first amongst the equals - nothing more or nothing less.

In the matter of the determination of the roster there are well-settled and time honoured conventions guiding the chief justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof.

A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed.

Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.

We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches &quot;of their preference&quot; without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.

We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.

In the above context, we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the order dated October 27, 2017 in RP Luthra vs Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure (MoP) in the larger public interest. When the MoP was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this court, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Anr Vs Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other bench could have dealt with the matter.

The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the collegium of five judges (including myself) and the MoP was finalised and sent by the then Hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India to the Government of India in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the MoP as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this court in Supreme Court Advocates-on- record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the MoP or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.

On July 4, 2017, a bench of seven judges of this court decided in Re, Hon&#39;ble Justice C S Karnan [(2017)1 SCC1]. In that decision (referred to in RP Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven judges with regard to the MoP.

Any issue with regard to MoP should be discussed in the Chief Justices&#39; conference and by the full court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a constitution bench.

The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the collegium and at a later stage, if required, with other hon&#39;ble judges of this court.

Once the issue arising from the order dated October 27, 2017, in RP Luthra Vs UOI, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this court which would require to be similarly dealt with.

With kind regards, 
Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.

&nbsp;

<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7497921862011637" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_88364" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/368980476/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-Akn0pnEm2oFWkIno7Ub5&amp;show_recommendations=true" title="Letter by Supreme Court judges" width="100%"></iframe>

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an unprecedented press meeting where they raised questions about the working of the top court.

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an unprecedented press meeting where they raised questions about the working of the top court. In a seven-page letter, the judges also made some other claims. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said. The other three judges which were part of the open meet were Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Gogoi. "In this situation, democracy won't survive," Justice Chelameswar declared. Here is the full text of the letter: Dear Chief Justice, It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. From the date of establishment of the three chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this court which came into existence almost a century after the above mentioned courts. These traditions have their roots in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and practice. One of the well settled principles is that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster with a privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which member/bench of this court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the Chief Justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention devised for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of the Chief Justice over his colleagues. It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only the first amongst the equals - nothing more or nothing less. In the matter of the determination of the roster there are well-settled and time honoured conventions guiding the chief justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof. A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is the members of any multi numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed. Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure. We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches "of their preference" without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs. We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent. In the above context, we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the order dated October 27, 2017 in RP Luthra vs Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalising the memorandum of procedure (MoP) in the larger public interest. When the MoP was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this court, in Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association and Anr Vs Union of India [(2016) 5 SCC1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other bench could have dealt with the matter. The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the collegium of five judges (including myself) and the MoP was finalised and sent by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to the Government of India in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the MoP as finalised by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government on the basis of the order of this court in Supreme Court Advocates-on- record Association (Supra). There was, therefore, no occasion for the bench to make any observation with regard to the finalisation of the MoP or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period. On July 4, 2017, a bench of seven judges of this court decided in Re, Hon'ble Justice C S Karnan [(2017)1 SCC1]. In that decision (referred to in RP Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven judges with regard to the MoP. Any issue with regard to MoP should be discussed in the Chief Justices' conference and by the full court. Such a matter of grave importance, if at all required to be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a constitution bench. The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The hon'ble Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the collegium and at a later stage, if required, with other hon'ble judges of this court. Once the issue arising from the order dated October 27, 2017, in RP Luthra Vs UOI, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this court which would require to be similarly dealt with. With kind regards, Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph.

The 7-page letter 4 senior Supreme Court judges wrote to Chief Justice of India

Warning that democracy is at risk,<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/all-you-should-know-about-sc-judges-who-addressed-media-today-29348" target="_blank"> four senior judges of the Supreme Court </a>on Friday mounted a virtual revolt against the country&#39;s chief justice, raising questions on &quot;selective&quot; case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.

Also read &mdash;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/press-conference-by-four-supreme-court-judges-could-have-been-avoided-attorney-general-29367" target="_blank">Press conference by four SC judges could have been avoided: Attorney General</a>

The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353" target="_blank">Chief Justice Dipak Misra</a>, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country&#39;s top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The apex court currently has 25 judges.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">&#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet</a>

Justice Chelameswar himself described as an &quot;extraordinary event&quot; in the annals of the Indian judiciary <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">when the judges addressed a joint news conference</a> during which he said, &quot;sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months.&quot;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rahul-gandhi-for-setting-up-of-sit-to-probe-into-judges-allegations-29331" target="_blank">Points they raised need to be looked into: Rahul Gandhi on Supreme Court judges&#39; revolt against CJI</a>

The judge accused Justice Misra of not taking any &quot;remedial measures&quot; on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017, and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year.

Also read &mdash;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353" target="_blank">Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile</a>

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive&quot; in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

In a scathing criticism and unvarnished self-reflection of the Supreme Court, Chelameswar, who was accompanied by Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph at the press conference, said they had met the chief justice this morning and &quot;raised issues affecting the institution.&quot; The CJI and the four judges comprise the Supreme Court collegium that selects judges for the higher judiciary.

&quot;Unless this institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said, adding that it was &quot;extremely painful&quot; to hold the press conference in such a manner. The conference was held at his residence here.

He said all the four judges &quot;failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed.

&quot;And all four of us are convinced that democracy is at stake and many things have happened in recent past,&quot; he said.

Asked what these issues were, he said they included the &quot;allocation of cases by CJI&quot;. The remarks assume significance as the apex court earlier in the day took up for consideration the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh &#39;fake encounter&#39; case.

Justice Chelameswar said &quot;we owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution.&quot;

&quot;This is an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, more particularly this nation and an extraordinary event in the institution of the judiciary ... It is with no pleasure that we are compelled to call this press conference.&quot;

There was no immediate official response from the CJI office.

Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

The Centre made it clear it is not going to intervene in the unprecedented development, saying the judiciary will resolve the issue itself.&nbsp;

&quot;Our judiciary is reputed all over the world, independent and they will sort the matter themselves,&quot; said minister of state for law P P Chaudhury.

The four judges, in their seven-page letter to the CJI, said, &quot;It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon&#39;ble Chief Justice of India.&quot;

The letter, that was released to the press, was sent a couple of months back, Justice Chelameswar said.

&quot;It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals &mdash; nothing more or nothing less.&quot;

The letter said that there have been instances where cases having &quot;far-reaching consequences for the nation&quot; and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court &quot;selectively to the benches &#39;of their preference&#39; without any rational basis&quot; for such assignment.&nbsp;

&quot;This must be guarded against at all costs.&quot;

&quot;We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.&quot;

The letter also raised the concerns of the judges on the allocation of cases.

&quot;It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals -- nothing more or nothing less.

&quot;A necessary corollary to the above-mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed.

&quot;Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.

&quot;We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to,&quot; the letter said.

The legal fraternity said they were &quot;pained&quot; and &quot;sad&quot; at the outcome of events in the country&#39;s highest court.

&quot;It is very unfortunate,&quot; said former CJI K G Balakrishnan, while Congress leader Ashwani Kumar, who is also a senior advocate, observed, &quot;It is a sad day for the judicial system.&quot; Some senior advocates like K T S Tulsi said there could have been some &quot;compelling&quot; reasons for the four judges to lay bare their differences.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/press-conference-by-four-supreme-court-judges-could-have-been-avoided-attorney-general-29367" target="_blank">Attorney General K K Venugopal,</a> who had a meeting with Justice Misra after the joint news conference of the judges, said it &quot;could have been avoided&quot; and that all judges would now have to act in &quot;statesmanship&quot; to ensure total harmony.

At the news conference, the judges rubbished suggestions that they have broken ranks and said they will discharge their duties as usual.

Justice Gogoi said &quot;nobody is breaking the rank and it is a discharge of debt to a nation which we have done.&quot;&nbsp;

Gogoi would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year.

Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges said

Warning that democracy is at risk, four senior judges of the Supreme Court on Friday mounted a virtual revolt against the country's chief justice, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity. Also read — Press conference by four SC judges could have been avoided: Attorney General The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country's top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The apex court currently has 25 judges. Also read: 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet Justice Chelameswar himself described as an "extraordinary event" in the annals of the Indian judiciary when the judges addressed a joint news conference during which he said, "sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months." Also read: Points they raised need to be looked into: Rahul Gandhi on Supreme Court judges' revolt against CJI The judge accused Justice Misra of not taking any "remedial measures" on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017, and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year. Also read — Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive" in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved. In a scathing criticism and unvarnished self-reflection of the Supreme Court, Chelameswar, who was accompanied by Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph at the press conference, said they had met the chief justice this morning and "raised issues affecting the institution." The CJI and the four judges comprise the Supreme Court collegium that selects judges for the higher judiciary. "Unless this institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country," Justice Chelameswar said, adding that it was "extremely painful" to hold the press conference in such a manner. The conference was held at his residence here. He said all the four judges "failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed. "And all four of us are convinced that democracy is at stake and many things have happened in recent past," he said. Asked what these issues were, he said they included the "allocation of cases by CJI". The remarks assume significance as the apex court earlier in the day took up for consideration the issue of alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was hearing the sensitive Sohrabuddin Sheikh 'fake encounter' case. Justice Chelameswar said "we owe a responsibility to the institution and the nation. Our efforts have failed in convincing CJI to take steps to protect the institution." "This is an extraordinary event in the history of any nation, more particularly this nation and an extraordinary event in the institution of the judiciary ... It is with no pleasure that we are compelled to call this press conference." There was no immediate official response from the CJI office. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." The Centre made it clear it is not going to intervene in the unprecedented development, saying the judiciary will resolve the issue itself. "Our judiciary is reputed all over the world, independent and they will sort the matter themselves," said minister of state for law P P Chaudhury. The four judges, in their seven-page letter to the CJI, said, "It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivering system and the independence of the high courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the office of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India." The letter, that was released to the press, was sent a couple of months back, Justice Chelameswar said. "It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals — nothing more or nothing less." The letter said that there have been instances where cases having "far-reaching consequences for the nation" and the institution have been assigned by the chief justices of this court "selectively to the benches 'of their preference' without any rational basis" for such assignment. "This must be guarded against at all costs." "We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent." The letter also raised the concerns of the judges on the allocation of cases. "It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only first amongst the equals -- nothing more or nothing less. "A necessary corollary to the above-mentioned principle is the members of any multi-numbered judicial body including this court would not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed. "Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure. "We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to," the letter said. The legal fraternity said they were "pained" and "sad" at the outcome of events in the country's highest court. "It is very unfortunate," said former CJI K G Balakrishnan, while Congress leader Ashwani Kumar, who is also a senior advocate, observed, "It is a sad day for the judicial system." Some senior advocates like K T S Tulsi said there could have been some "compelling" reasons for the four judges to lay bare their differences. Attorney General K K Venugopal, who had a meeting with Justice Misra after the joint news conference of the judges, said it "could have been avoided" and that all judges would now have to act in "statesmanship" to ensure total harmony. At the news conference, the judges rubbished suggestions that they have broken ranks and said they will discharge their duties as usual. Justice Gogoi said "nobody is breaking the rank and it is a discharge of debt to a nation which we have done." Gogoi would be succeeding Misra as CJI in October this year.

Four Supreme Court judges take on Chief Justice of India, say democracy at risk

CPI on Friday clarified that D Raja met&nbsp;Justice J Chelameswar in his personal capacity and the meeting has nothing to do with the party.&nbsp;

The senior-most judge in the Supreme Court&nbsp;Justice J Chelameswar met with the CPI leader D Raja after the unprecedented press conference in Delhi.

&quot;Raja went (to Justice Chelameswar&#39;s residence) in his personal capacity, not as a representative of the party,&quot; CPI general secretary S Sudhakar Reddy told PTI.

Dismissing the speculations that CPI was trying to intervene in the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court judges he called it a &quot;misunderstanding.&nbsp;

&quot;It is a misunderstanding that the CPI wants to meddle in this controversy. The judiciary itself has to solve the problem. It is a very important issue. The advice of former CJIs and prominent jurists should also be taken into account and the confidence and credibility of the Supreme Court should be re-established,&quot; Reddy said.&nbsp;

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy reacted to the meeting by saying that D Raja is not just a politician but a member of Parliament as well.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
So what? This is not a big thing, D Raja is not just a politician but a member of Parliament as well: Subramanian Swamy,BJP on CPI&#39;s D Raja meeting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeChelameswar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeChelameswar</a> <a href="https://t.co/dyVDoE8LFP">pic.twitter.com/dyVDoE8LFP</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/951825590037790722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 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">&times;</a></div>

In an unprecedented move, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an open press conference where they said that the administration of the apex court is &quot;sometimes not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable things&quot; have taken place.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Following which the CPI came forward to clarify that the meeting between the CPI leader and Justice Chelameswar was not related to the party. The party said that its leader D Raja had paid a visit in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the party.

CPI on Friday clarified that D Raja met Justice J Chelameswar in his personal capacity and the meeting has nothing to do with the party. The senior-most judge in the Supreme Court Justice J Chelameswar met with the CPI leader D Raja after the unprecedented press conference in Delhi. "Raja went (to Justice Chelameswar's residence) in his personal capacity, not as a representative of the party," CPI general secretary S Sudhakar Reddy told PTI. Dismissing the speculations that CPI was trying to intervene in the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court judges he called it a "misunderstanding. "It is a misunderstanding that the CPI wants to meddle in this controversy. The judiciary itself has to solve the problem. It is a very important issue. The advice of former CJIs and prominent jurists should also be taken into account and the confidence and credibility of the Supreme Court should be re-established," Reddy said. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy reacted to the meeting by saying that D Raja is not just a politician but a member of Parliament as well. So what? This is not a big thing, D Raja is not just a politician but a member of Parliament as well: Subramanian Swamy,BJP on CPI's D Raja meeting #JusticeChelameswar pic.twitter.com/dyVDoE8LFP — ANI (@ANI) January 12, 2018 × In an unprecedented move, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an open press conference where they said that the administration of the apex court is "sometimes not in order" and many "less than desirable things" have taken place.

D Raja met Justice Chelameswar in his personal capacity: CPI

Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that there was no need for the Supreme Court judges to call for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">press conference</a> today. He said that the judges would now have to act in &quot;statesmanship&quot; to ensure complete harmony.

Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-india-dipak-misra-a-profile-29353">Dipak Misra</a> after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved.

&quot;Today&#39;s press conference could have been avoided, but the Supreme Court judges are all statesman with vast experience and knowledge, and I am sure by tomorrow, the entire issue would be resolved,&quot; Venugopal, main legal advisor to the government, said on Friday.

&quot;This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion,&quot; he added.

Sources said judges, other than the four senior most ones, also held a meeting during the recess and were concerned about the unprecedented development.

Warning that democracy is at stake, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today mounted a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324">virtual revolt against the CJI</a>, raising questions on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-7-page-letter-4-senior-supreme-court-judges-wrote-to-chief-justice-of-india-29321">&quot;selective&quot; case allocation</a> and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity.

The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country&#39;s top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The Supreme Court currently has 25 judges.

The judge accused CJI Misra of not taking any &quot;remedial measures&quot; on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017 and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year.

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive&quot; in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved.

Attorney General KK Venugopal has said that there was no need for the Supreme Court judges to call for a press conference today. He said that the judges would now have to act in "statesmanship" to ensure complete harmony. Venugopal, who had a meeting with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra after the press conference, expressed hope that all judges, including the CJI, would rise to the occasion and the entire issue will be resolved. "Today's press conference could have been avoided, but the Supreme Court judges are all statesman with vast experience and knowledge, and I am sure by tomorrow, the entire issue would be resolved," Venugopal, main legal advisor to the government, said on Friday. "This is what all of us at the bar want and I am sure that the judges, including the CJI, will rise to the occasion," he added. Sources said judges, other than the four senior most ones, also held a meeting during the recess and were concerned about the unprecedented development. Warning that democracy is at stake, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI, raising questions on "selective" case allocation and certain judicial orders, sending shockwaves across the judiciary and polity. The unprecedented move by the four judges including Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior judge after Chief Justice Dipak Misra, brought to fore the simmering differences between the country's top judge and some senior judges in the apex court in recent months. The Supreme Court currently has 25 judges. The judge accused CJI Misra of not taking any "remedial measures" on some of the issues which affected the functioning of the apex court that they had raised. Justice Misra became the CJI on August 28, 2017 and he is due to retire from on October 2 this year. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive" in this country, Justice Chelameswar said at the unscheduled press conference, in the first of its kind event in independent India, leaving uncertain how this open dissension in the hallowed institution would be resolved.

Press conference by four Supreme Court judges could have been avoided: Attorney General

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324" target="_blank">Let the nation decide on CJI&#39;s impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference</a>

India&#39;s Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI)&nbsp;of India&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">Dipak Misra</a>&nbsp;after four judges addressed the media for the first time.&nbsp;Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">addressed the media</a>&nbsp;for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day.&nbsp;Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">&#39;We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,&#39; say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet</a>

The judges criticised Supreme Court&#39;s distribution of cases to judges and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">raised concerns</a>&nbsp;about judicial appointments. &quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said on the lawns of his residence in New Delhi. &quot;The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,&quot;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-takes-exception-to-indias-cartosat-2s-satellite-launch-29356" target="_blank">Pakistan takes exception to India&#39;s Cartosat-2s satellite launch</a>

Taking exception to India&#39;s 100th satellite+, Pakistan said that such pursuits should not be directed towards a build-up of destabilizing military capabilities, which can negatively impact the regional strategic stability.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/hafiz-saeed-criticises-pakistan-government-for-not-ushering-islamic-rule-in-country-29309" target="_blank">Hafiz Saeed criticises Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in country</a>

The Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief and UN-designated global terrorist Hafiz Saeed has lashed out at the Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in the country. &quot;They have started this work by finishing the message of Prophet Muhammad. Let us unite and pledge that we would not let it happen,&quot; Saeed has said at an event.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/why-do-teachers-in-jk-use-separate-map-for-state-asks-army-chief-29358" target="_blank">&#39;Why do teachers in J&amp;K use separate map for state?&#39; asks Army Chief</a>

Army Chief General Bipin Rawat on Friday said that schools in Jammu and Kashmir are instilling wrong information into students&#39; mind by showing them a separate map of their state and not as one Indian map.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference India's Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI) of India Dipak Misra after four judges addressed the media for the first time. Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." 'We failed to convince the Chief Justice of India,' say 4 senior judges in first ever open meet The judges criticised Supreme Court's distribution of cases to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said on the lawns of his residence in New Delhi. "The four of us are convinced that unless this institution is preserved and it maintains its equanimity, democracy will not survive in this country,". Pakistan takes exception to India's Cartosat-2s satellite launch Taking exception to India's 100th satellite+, Pakistan said that such pursuits should not be directed towards a build-up of destabilizing military capabilities, which can negatively impact the regional strategic stability. Hafiz Saeed criticises Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in country The Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) chief and UN-designated global terrorist Hafiz Saeed has lashed out at the Pakistan government for not ushering Islamic rule in the country. "They have started this work by finishing the message of Prophet Muhammad. Let us unite and pledge that we would not let it happen," Saeed has said at an event. 'Why do teachers in J&K use separate map for state?' asks Army Chief Army Chief General Bipin Rawat on Friday said that schools in Jammu and Kashmir are instilling wrong information into students' mind by showing them a separate map of their state and not as one Indian map.

WION Evening News brief, January 12, 2018

After a series of unprecedented scenes and drama in the matter of Centre vs Delhi in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan has said he will quit court practice&nbsp;citing &quot;humiliation&quot;.

That means he will no longer appear in court.&nbsp;

In his letter to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Dhawan complained of a humiliating end to the case of allocation of power between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor, leaving him with no option but to give up his court practice.&nbsp;

As per media reports, the last date of hearing in the matter witnessed some unsavoury back-and-forth which irked the Chief Justice of India. 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Justice Misra reportedly lashed out at the conduct of the senior lawyers, which included Dhawan, calling their demeanour atrocious, and adding he would be constrained to take action.&nbsp;

Justice Misra reportedly also said that the lawyers do not deserve their designation of senior advocates, or the gown they wear.&nbsp;

In his letter to Misra, Dhawan said he would be happy to return his gown but would like to keep it for the sake of memory.

Dhawan had appeared on behalf of the Delhi government in the matter. 
&nbsp;

There had been some unsavoury back-and-forth between some senior lawyers, including Dhawan, and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra

After a series of unprecedented scenes and drama in the matter of Centre vs Delhi in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan has said he will quit court practice citing "humiliation". That means he will no longer appear in court. In his letter to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Dhawan complained of a humiliating end to the case of allocation of power between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor, leaving him with no option but to give up his court practice. As per media reports, the last date of hearing in the matter witnessed some unsavoury back-and-forth which irked the Chief Justice of India. Justice Misra reportedly lashed out at the conduct of the senior lawyers, which included Dhawan, calling their demeanour atrocious, and adding he would be constrained to take action. Justice Misra reportedly also said that the lawyers do not deserve their designation of senior advocates, or the gown they wear. In his letter to Misra, Dhawan said he would be happy to return his gown but would like to keep it for the sake of memory. Dhawan had appeared on behalf of the Delhi government in the matter.

After spat with CJI, senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan quits court practice

A wheelchair-bound man has said that he was abused and called a &quot;Pakistani&quot; for not standing up for the national anthem.&nbsp;

The incident was reported from a multiplex in Guwahati, Assam.&nbsp;

Arman Ali,&nbsp;who is the director of an NGO for the differently-abled, said he was singing the national anthem while sitting when he heard someone commenting and calling him a Pakistani.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Guwahati: Wheelchair-bound Director of NGO for differently-abled says he was abused for not standing up for national anthem in a multiplex <a href="https://t.co/vH46FdpVES">pic.twitter.com/vH46FdpVES</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/914766678155653121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I was singing along while sitting. I heard someone commenting &amp; calling me a Pakistani. 2 men sat behind me, smirking: Arman Ali <a href="https://t.co/l1XlEaWUnS">pic.twitter.com/l1XlEaWUnS</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/914766823865843712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I don&#39;t think SC would&#39;ve thought of situation like this. I&#39;ll write to Chief Justice about this incident &amp; plight of ppl like me: Arman Ali <a href="https://t.co/lMJT0yW2G2">pic.twitter.com/lMJT0yW2G2</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/914767217488572416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 2, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Ali said he didn&#39;t think the Supreme Court would have thought of a situation like this and that he would be writing to the Chief Justice of India about what had happened to him and the plight of people like him.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India had on November 30 last year ordered cinema halls to play the national anthem before every movie, and said that the people present should stand up for it. (The order was passed -- to instil patriotism and nationalism among the people of the nation -- by the current Chief Justice of India.)&nbsp;

On December 9, the court modified its order, saying the differently-abled were exempt from the order.&nbsp;

He said he would be writing to the Chief Justice of India to inform him of the plight of people like him

A wheelchair-bound man has said that he was abused and called a "Pakistani" for not standing up for the national anthem. The incident was reported from a multiplex in Guwahati, Assam. Arman Ali, who is the director of an NGO for the differently-abled, said he was singing the national anthem while sitting when he heard someone commenting and calling him a Pakistani. Guwahati: Wheelchair-bound Director of NGO for differently-abled says he was abused for not standing up for national anthem in a multiplex pic.twitter.com/vH46FdpVES — ANI (@ANI) October 2, 2017 × I was singing along while sitting. I heard someone commenting & calling me a Pakistani. 2 men sat behind me, smirking: Arman Ali pic.twitter.com/l1XlEaWUnS — ANI (@ANI) October 2, 2017 × I don't think SC would've thought of situation like this. I'll write to Chief Justice about this incident & plight of ppl like me: Arman Ali pic.twitter.com/lMJT0yW2G2 — ANI (@ANI) October 2, 2017 × Ali said he didn't think the Supreme Court would have thought of a situation like this and that he would be writing to the Chief Justice of India about what had happened to him and the plight of people like him. The Supreme Court of India had on November 30 last year ordered cinema halls to play the national anthem before every movie, and said that the people present should stand up for it. (The order was passed -- to instil patriotism and nationalism among the people of the nation -- by the current Chief Justice of India.) On December 9, the court modified its order, saying the differently-abled were exempt from the order.

Man in wheelchair abused, called 'Pakistani' for not standing for national anthem

Electoral promises routinely remain unfulfilled and manifestos turn out to be mere pieces of paper, for which political parties must be held accountable, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar said Saturday. 
 
&quot;Now a days manifestos have become a mere piece of paper, for this political parties have to be made accountable,&quot; the CJI said at a seminar titled &#39;Economic Reforms with Reference to Electoral issues&#39;. 
 
The CJI, speaking in the presence of President Pranab Mukherjee, said political parties give &quot;brazen&quot; excuses like lack of consensus amongst their members to justify non- fulfilment of their poll promises. 
 
He said manifestos remain pieces of paper due to short term memory of citizens but political parties must be held accountable. 
 
On the manifestos released by political parties during the 2014 general elections, the CJI said none of them indicated any link between electoral reforms and the Constitutional goal of ensuring economic-social justice to the marginalised section. 
 
He said pursuant to Supreme Court&#39;s directions to the Election Commission of India to formulate guidelines against freebies, the poll panel has been taking action against parties for violation of the model code of conduct. 
 
Justice Dipak Misra, the next senior-most judge, also stressed upon the need for electoral reforms saying that &quot;purchasing power has no room in elections&quot; and a candidate must bear in mind that &quot;contesting elections is not an investment&quot;. 
 
He said that holding of elections has to be &quot;bereft of or sans criminalisation&quot; and people should vote for candidates based on their high moral and ethical values and &quot;not on their competitive demerits&quot;. 
 
&quot;Candidates and voters must remember that out of debt is out of danger,&quot; Justice Misra said, adding the day a voter goes to vote without being tempted &quot;would be a glorious day for democracy&quot;.&nbsp; 
 
(PTI)

 
&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India JS Khehar said political parties gave the most 'brazen'excuses for non- fulfilment of their poll promises

Electoral promises routinely remain unfulfilled and manifestos turn out to be mere pieces of paper, for which political parties must be held accountable, Chief Justice of India JS Khehar said Saturday. "Now a days manifestos have become a mere piece of paper, for this political parties have to be made accountable," the CJI said at a seminar titled 'Economic Reforms with Reference to Electoral issues'. The CJI, speaking in the presence of President Pranab Mukherjee, said political parties give "brazen" excuses like lack of consensus amongst their members to justify non- fulfilment of their poll promises. He said manifestos remain pieces of paper due to short term memory of citizens but political parties must be held accountable. On the manifestos released by political parties during the 2014 general elections, the CJI said none of them indicated any link between electoral reforms and the Constitutional goal of ensuring economic-social justice to the marginalised section. He said pursuant to Supreme Court's directions to the Election Commission of India to formulate guidelines against freebies, the poll panel has been taking action against parties for violation of the model code of conduct. Justice Dipak Misra, the next senior-most judge, also stressed upon the need for electoral reforms saying that "purchasing power has no room in elections" and a candidate must bear in mind that "contesting elections is not an investment". He said that holding of elections has to be "bereft of or sans criminalisation" and people should vote for candidates based on their high moral and ethical values and "not on their competitive demerits". "Candidates and voters must remember that out of debt is out of danger," Justice Misra said, adding the day a voter goes to vote without being tempted "would be a glorious day for democracy". (PTI)

Political parties must be held accountable for unfulfilled poll promises: Chief Justice of India

Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, who led the five-judge constitution bench in the Supreme Court which had struck down the controversial NJAC Act for appointment of judges, was today recommended as the 44th Chief Justice of India.

Chief Justice of India T S Thakur today wrote a letter recommending the name of Justice Khehar, who is the senior most judge of the Supreme Court to be his successor.

Justice Khehar, 64, will be the first Chief Justice from the Sikh community and he will succeed CJI Thakur who will be demitting office on January 3, 2017.

Justice Khehar, who will be sworn in on January 4, will hold the tenure for over seven months till August 27, 2017.

Besides heading the bench in NJAC matter, Justice Khehar has also headed a bench which had set aside the imposition of President&#39;s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh in January this year.

He was also a part of the bench which sent Sahara chief Subrata Roy to jail while hearing the matter relating to the refund of money invested by people in his two companies.

Justice Khehar also headed a bench which recently gave a significant verdict holding that the principal of &#39;equal pay for equal work&#39; has to be made applicable to those engaged as daily wagers, casual and contractual employees who perform the same duties as the regulars.

While the turf war between the judiciary and the executive over the appointment of judges for higher judiciary has intensified, Justice Khehar on the occasion of Constitution Day on November 26 had responded to the tirade from Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi by saying that the judiciary was working within its &quot;lakshmanrekha&quot; (limits).

&quot;Judiciary is mandated to shield all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, against discrimination and abuse of State power. Liberty, equality and dignity of citizen have flourished substantially in India due to the pro-active role of judiciary in the country,&quot; he had said.&nbsp;

Justice Khehar was also a part of the five-judge bench which answered the Presidential Reference whether all natural resources have to be alienated through auction.

The issue had arisen in wake of 2G spectrum allocation matter in which all 122 licences were quashed by the apex court. Justice Khehar, writing a separate judgement, had opined that no part of natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largesse, charity, donation or endowment for private exploitation.

He had held that each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration.

The consideration may be in the nature of earning revenue or may be to &#39;best subserve the common good&#39;, he had said, adding, it may well be the amalgam of the two.

Justice Khehar was also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha appointed Inquiry Committee for investigating the grounds on which the removal of Justice P D Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, was sought for alleged corruption.

Justice Khehar had assumed office as Judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.

Before his elevation to the apex court, he was the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010.

He was also the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court and was the Acting Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana HC twice with effect from August 02, 2008, and again, from November 17, 2009.

He became a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on February 8, 1999.

An LLM from Panjab University, he was enrolled as an advocate in 1979, was appointed as Additional Advocate General in Punjab, in January 1992, and then as Senior Standing Counsel, Union Territory, Chandigarh.

He was designated as senior advocate in February, 1995 and remained standing counsel for Universities, Corporate Bodies and a large number of companies and cooperative organisations.

(PTI)

Justice Khehar, 64, will succeed chief justice Thakur as the 44th Chief Justice of India

Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, who led the five-judge constitution bench in the Supreme Court which had struck down the controversial NJAC Act for appointment of judges, was today recommended as the 44th Chief Justice of India. Chief Justice of India T S Thakur today wrote a letter recommending the name of Justice Khehar, who is the senior most judge of the Supreme Court to be his successor. Justice Khehar, 64, will be the first Chief Justice from the Sikh community and he will succeed CJI Thakur who will be demitting office on January 3, 2017. Justice Khehar, who will be sworn in on January 4, will hold the tenure for over seven months till August 27, 2017. Besides heading the bench in NJAC matter, Justice Khehar has also headed a bench which had set aside the imposition of President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh in January this year. He was also a part of the bench which sent Sahara chief Subrata Roy to jail while hearing the matter relating to the refund of money invested by people in his two companies. Justice Khehar also headed a bench which recently gave a significant verdict holding that the principal of 'equal pay for equal work' has to be made applicable to those engaged as daily wagers, casual and contractual employees who perform the same duties as the regulars. While the turf war between the judiciary and the executive over the appointment of judges for higher judiciary has intensified, Justice Khehar on the occasion of Constitution Day on November 26 had responded to the tirade from Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi by saying that the judiciary was working within its "lakshmanrekha" (limits). "Judiciary is mandated to shield all persons, citizens and non-citizens alike, against discrimination and abuse of State power. Liberty, equality and dignity of citizen have flourished substantially in India due to the pro-active role of judiciary in the country," he had said. Justice Khehar was also a part of the five-judge bench which answered the Presidential Reference whether all natural resources have to be alienated through auction. The issue had arisen in wake of 2G spectrum allocation matter in which all 122 licences were quashed by the apex court. Justice Khehar, writing a separate judgement, had opined that no part of natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largesse, charity, donation or endowment for private exploitation. He had held that each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration. The consideration may be in the nature of earning revenue or may be to 'best subserve the common good', he had said, adding, it may well be the amalgam of the two. Justice Khehar was also the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha appointed Inquiry Committee for investigating the grounds on which the removal of Justice P D Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, was sought for alleged corruption. Justice Khehar had assumed office as Judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011. Before his elevation to the apex court, he was the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was also the Chief Justice of Uttarakhand High Court and was the Acting Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana HC twice with effect from August 02, 2008, and again, from November 17, 2009. He became a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on February 8, 1999. An LLM from Panjab University, he was enrolled as an advocate in 1979, was appointed as Additional Advocate General in Punjab, in January 1992, and then as Senior Standing Counsel, Union Territory, Chandigarh. He was designated as senior advocate in February, 1995 and remained standing counsel for Universities, Corporate Bodies and a large number of companies and cooperative organisations. (PTI)

JS Khehar to be next Chief Justice of India

Differences between the Indian&nbsp;judiciary and government continued to be aired in the open with Chief Justice of India T S Thakur saying there is shortage of judges in high courts and tribunals requiring government intervention, a view law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad strongly disagreed with.

&quot;500 judges posts are vacant in the high courts. They should be working today, but they are not. At present, there are several vacant courtrooms in India but no judges available. A large number of proposals are still pending and hope the government will intervene to end this crisis,&quot; Justice Thakur said while addressing an All India Conference of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Disagreeing with the CJI, the law minister said the government has made 120 appointments this year which was the second highest since 1990. The highest number of appointments of 121 were made in 2013, Prasad said.

&quot;We respectfully disagree with him (CJI). This year we have made 120 appointments. The second highest of 121 is of 2013. Since 1990 there have been only 80 appointments. 5,000 vacancies are there in the lower judiciary in which the government of India has no role to play. That is something only for the judiciary to take care.

&quot;As far as infrastructure is concerned, that is a continuous process. Where the larger issue of appointment is concerned, there is a Supreme Court decision of making the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) more transparent, objective, reasonable, fair and the government stand is pending for the last more than three months and we are yet to hear from the Supreme Court,&quot; he said.

The CJI said that &quot;manpower deficit&quot; was also present in the tribunals which also faced the problem of lack of infrastructure leading to pendency of cases for five to seven years, apart from making apex court judges averse to heading such quasi-judicial bodies.

&quot;State of affairs in the tribunals is giving me the impression that you (tribunals) are no better. You are suffering from the same kind of deficit, manpower deficit. You cannot set up a tribunal, you cannot set up a bench at so many places because there are no members.&quot;

&quot;If the total strength of this tribunal is 65 and if you have 18 or 20 vacancies then it means that you are short by a large number. The working is going to be affected and that is why you have cases that are more than five years and seven years old,&quot; he said adding &quot;the least that you (government) must do is to ensure that these tribunals run with full strength.&quot;

The CJI also said the tribunals &quot;are not equipped and are lying empty and today a situation has come that no retired Supreme Court judge wants to head the Tribunal. I am pained to send my retired colleagues there&quot;.

&quot;Government is not ready to give proper facilities. Vacancy apart from infrastructure is a major concern for the Tribunal,&quot; he added.

During the conference, the CJI said there was a need to amend the rules for appointment of chairpersons and members of various tribunals so that the judges of the high courts can also be eligible for the posts.

Speaking at the event, Prasad, who is also the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology, said that the CAT has been a unique experience even amongst the tribunals since it is a successful blend of judicial and administrative excellence.

He said CAT has rendered a &quot;yeoman&#39;s role in the evolution of service matters and framing of rules&quot;.

He said that the rising number of appeals against CAT judgements before high courts and the Supreme Court compounds the problem of pending litigations, and suggested exploring the idea of inter-court appeal as an alternative.

Supreme Court judge Justice J Chelameswar said that lack of precision in the law and judicial rulings favouring both the rival parties are the prime reasons for the mounting arrears in service-related litigations.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(PTI)

Disagreeing with the CJI, the law minister said the government has made 120 appointments this year, the?second highest since 1990

Differences between the Indian judiciary and government continued to be aired in the open with Chief Justice of India T S Thakur saying there is shortage of judges in high courts and tribunals requiring government intervention, a view law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad strongly disagreed with. "500 judges posts are vacant in the high courts. They should be working today, but they are not. At present, there are several vacant courtrooms in India but no judges available. A large number of proposals are still pending and hope the government will intervene to end this crisis," Justice Thakur said while addressing an All India Conference of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). Disagreeing with the CJI, the law minister said the government has made 120 appointments this year which was the second highest since 1990. The highest number of appointments of 121 were made in 2013, Prasad said. "We respectfully disagree with him (CJI). This year we have made 120 appointments. The second highest of 121 is of 2013. Since 1990 there have been only 80 appointments. 5,000 vacancies are there in the lower judiciary in which the government of India has no role to play. That is something only for the judiciary to take care. "As far as infrastructure is concerned, that is a continuous process. Where the larger issue of appointment is concerned, there is a Supreme Court decision of making the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) more transparent, objective, reasonable, fair and the government stand is pending for the last more than three months and we are yet to hear from the Supreme Court," he said. The CJI said that "manpower deficit" was also present in the tribunals which also faced the problem of lack of infrastructure leading to pendency of cases for five to seven years, apart from making apex court judges averse to heading such quasi-judicial bodies. "State of affairs in the tribunals is giving me the impression that you (tribunals) are no better. You are suffering from the same kind of deficit, manpower deficit. You cannot set up a tribunal, you cannot set up a bench at so many places because there are no members." "If the total strength of this tribunal is 65 and if you have 18 or 20 vacancies then it means that you are short by a large number. The working is going to be affected and that is why you have cases that are more than five years and seven years old," he said adding "the least that you (government) must do is to ensure that these tribunals run with full strength." The CJI also said the tribunals "are not equipped and are lying empty and today a situation has come that no retired Supreme Court judge wants to head the Tribunal. I am pained to send my retired colleagues there". "Government is not ready to give proper facilities. Vacancy apart from infrastructure is a major concern for the Tribunal," he added. During the conference, the CJI said there was a need to amend the rules for appointment of chairpersons and members of various tribunals so that the judges of the high courts can also be eligible for the posts. Speaking at the event, Prasad, who is also the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology, said that the CAT has been a unique experience even amongst the tribunals since it is a successful blend of judicial and administrative excellence. He said CAT has rendered a "yeoman's role in the evolution of service matters and framing of rules". He said that the rising number of appeals against CAT judgements before high courts and the Supreme Court compounds the problem of pending litigations, and suggested exploring the idea of inter-court appeal as an alternative. Supreme Court judge Justice J Chelameswar said that lack of precision in the law and judicial rulings favouring both the rival parties are the prime reasons for the mounting arrears in service-related litigations. (PTI)

Chief Justice of India hits out at government over shortage of judges, says '500 posts are vacant'

chief-justice-of-india

Chief Justice Of India, News on Chief Justice Of India, stories on Chief Justice Of India, articles on Chief Justice Of India, Chief Justice Of India stories at Wion, Chief Justice Of India news, Chief Justice Of India latest news

chief justice-of-india

Opposition party leaders likely to meet today

Here is the 5-step procedure to impeach Chief Justice of India

CJI impeachment move as Cong's conspiracies were exposed: BJP

CJI impeachment row: Seven parties move motion to sack Dipak Misra

Opposition parties meet vice president, give notice for impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra

Supreme Court agrees to examine plea challenging allocation of cases by CJI

Justice Chelameswar refuses to hear plea against CJI's power as 'master of roster'

Chief Justice of India is first among equals: Supreme Court

Lawyers' body concerned over the revelations made by SC judge Chelameswar

Opposition begins gathering signatures to impeach Chief Justice of India

Aadhaar not mandatory for students taking all-India examinations: Supreme Court

Supreme Court adopts roster system for allocation of matters, CJI keeps PIL cases

CJI Dipak Misra meets 4 Supreme Court judges to diffuse crisis

CJI Dipak Misra meets 4 Supreme Court judges to diffuse crisis

CJAR hands over complaint against CJI to SC's 5 most senior judges

Crisis in Supreme Court over: Attorney General K K Venugopal

Supreme Court crisis: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI

Chief Justice of India to meet rebel judges today: Reports

Bar Council of India cautions parties, leaders against meddling with judiciary

SC judges' presser against CJI 'disturbing': Shiv Sena

Judicial rift: Bar Council forms 7-member committee to resolve the matter

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile

The 7-page letter 4 senior Supreme Court judges wrote to Chief Justice of India

Four Supreme Court judges take on Chief Justice of India, say democracy at risk