In an order that left the fate of the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka hanging by a thread, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the 15 rebel MLAs of the ruling side cannot be compelled to participate in the trust vote in the Assembly tomorrow even as it gave freedom to the Speaker to decide on their resignation in a timeframe he considers it appropriate.

However, the court said that the Speaker's order on the resignations of the MLAs, whenever it is taken, should be placed before it.

"Until further orders, the 15 Members of the Assembly ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said in its verdict.

The court observed that Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar cannot be forced to decide within a time frame on the resignations of the rebel MLAs.

"In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 members of the House within such time frame as the Speaker may consider appropriate," the bench said.

A floor test is scheduled for tomorrow in the Assembly when it will take up the Confidence Motion to be moved by Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy.

In the 224-member House, the 13-month-old coalition is precariously placed if the rebels keep out of the Assembly during the vote tomorrow.&nbsp;

Without the support of the rebels, the coalition enjoys the support of around 100 members as against the support of 105 being claimed by the Opposition BJP.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the rebel MLAs, told reporters, "In view of the trust vote kept for tomorrow, the Supreme Court has said two important things - the 15 MLAs will not be compelled to attend the House tomorrow. All the 15 MLAs are given the liberty that they may or may not go to the House tomorrow".&nbsp;

"The three-line whip issued to the rebel MLAs to attend the House tomorrow is not operative in view of the Supreme Court judgement. Secondly, the Speaker has been given time to decide on the resignations as and when he wants to decide."The Speaker welcomed the apex court's order saying he respected it.

Karnataka minister and chief troubleshooter for the Congress, D K Shiv Kumar also welcomed the order saying the Speaker's position under the tenth schedule has been respected but warned the rebels whether they would like to lose the chances of becoming a minister by keeping away from voting tomorrow.

He said while the MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings, there was also the question of the effectiveness of the anti-defection law under which political parties are empowered to issue whip to the members to participate in the business of the House and vote in accordance with its direction.

Kumar said the rebel MLAs, some of whom are experienced MLAs for five or seven terms, were being "misled".

The rebel MLAs had filed a petition before the apex court claiming that the Speaker was not deciding on their resignation letters and was attempting to force them to participate in the voting by threatening disqualification.

Those who filed the petition included Pratap Gouda Patil, Ramesh Jarkhiholi, Byrati Basavaraj, BC Patil, S T Somashekar, Arbail Sivaram Hebbar and Mahesh Kumathalli from Congress and K Gopalaiah, H D Vishwanath and Narayan Gowda from JD(S).

Five other rebel MLAs - K Sudhakar, Roshan Baig, MTB Nagaraj, Muniratna and Anand Singh - had approached the court on July 13 contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Speaker.&nbsp;

In its order, the court observed that the issue arising in the case is whether the resignations submitted by MLAs a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) should have priority in the decision-making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the requests for resignation.

Referring to the arguments of counsels for the parties on the touchstone of Articles 164, 190, 191, 221(2) and 361B and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the court said we have considered the same.

"Constitutional principles should not receive an exhaustive enumeration by the Court unless such an exercise is inevitable and unavoidable to resolve the issues that may have arisen any judicial proceedings."In the present case, having regard to the stage at which the above issues are poised in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, we are of the view that the aforesaid questions should receive an answer only at a later stage of the proceedings," the judges said.

The imperative necessity at this stage, the judges said, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before them.&nbsp;

The bench said, "such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particular, the no-trust motion against the present government, which we are told is due for being taken up on July 18, 2019".

"In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon'ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon'ble Speaker may consider appropriate" they said.

"We also take the view that in the present case, the discretion of the Hon`ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon'ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190," they added.

The also observed that read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution.

"The order of the Hon'ble Speaker on the issue of the resignation, as and when passed, be placed before the Court. We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same. We order accordingly," the judges said. &nbsp;

In an order that left the fate of the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka hanging by a thread, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the 15 rebel MLAs of the ruling side cannot be compelled to participate in the trust vote in the Assembly tomorrow even as it gave freedom to the Speaker to decide on their resignation in a timeframe he considers it appropriate.

In an order that left the fate of the JD(S)-Congress coalition government in Karnataka hanging by a thread, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the 15 rebel MLAs of the ruling side cannot be compelled to participate in the trust vote in the Assembly tomorrow even as it gave freedom to the Speaker to decide on their resignation in a timeframe he considers it appropriate. However, the court said that the Speaker's order on the resignations of the MLAs, whenever it is taken, should be placed before it. "Until further orders, the 15 Members of the Assembly ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same," a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said in its verdict. The court observed that Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar cannot be forced to decide within a time frame on the resignations of the rebel MLAs. "In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate interim order, which according to us, should be to permit the Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 members of the House within such time frame as the Speaker may consider appropriate," the bench said. A floor test is scheduled for tomorrow in the Assembly when it will take up the Confidence Motion to be moved by Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy. In the 224-member House, the 13-month-old coalition is precariously placed if the rebels keep out of the Assembly during the vote tomorrow. Without the support of the rebels, the coalition enjoys the support of around 100 members as against the support of 105 being claimed by the Opposition BJP. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the rebel MLAs, told reporters, "In view of the trust vote kept for tomorrow, the Supreme Court has said two important things - the 15 MLAs will not be compelled to attend the House tomorrow. All the 15 MLAs are given the liberty that they may or may not go to the House tomorrow". "The three-line whip issued to the rebel MLAs to attend the House tomorrow is not operative in view of the Supreme Court judgement. Secondly, the Speaker has been given time to decide on the resignations as and when he wants to decide."The Speaker welcomed the apex court's order saying he respected it. Karnataka minister and chief troubleshooter for the Congress, D K Shiv Kumar also welcomed the order saying the Speaker's position under the tenth schedule has been respected but warned the rebels whether they would like to lose the chances of becoming a minister by keeping away from voting tomorrow. He said while the MLAs cannot be compelled to participate in the House proceedings, there was also the question of the effectiveness of the anti-defection law under which political parties are empowered to issue whip to the members to participate in the business of the House and vote in accordance with its direction. Kumar said the rebel MLAs, some of whom are experienced MLAs for five or seven terms, were being "misled". The rebel MLAs had filed a petition before the apex court claiming that the Speaker was not deciding on their resignation letters and was attempting to force them to participate in the voting by threatening disqualification. Those who filed the petition included Pratap Gouda Patil, Ramesh Jarkhiholi, Byrati Basavaraj, BC Patil, S T Somashekar, Arbail Sivaram Hebbar and Mahesh Kumathalli from Congress and K Gopalaiah, H D Vishwanath and Narayan Gowda from JD(S). Five other rebel MLAs - K Sudhakar, Roshan Baig, MTB Nagaraj, Muniratna and Anand Singh - had approached the court on July 13 contending they had resigned "voluntarily" and that their resignation must be accepted by the Speaker. In its order, the court observed that the issue arising in the case is whether the resignations submitted by MLAs a point of time earlier than petitions for their disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law) should have priority in the decision-making process or whether both sets of proceedings should be taken up simultaneously or the disqualification proceedings should have precedence over the requests for resignation. Referring to the arguments of counsels for the parties on the touchstone of Articles 164, 190, 191, 221(2) and 361B and the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, the court said we have considered the same. "Constitutional principles should not receive an exhaustive enumeration by the Court unless such an exercise is inevitable and unavoidable to resolve the issues that may have arisen any judicial proceedings."In the present case, having regard to the stage at which the above issues are poised in the light of the facts and circumstances surrounding the same, we are of the view that the aforesaid questions should receive an answer only at a later stage of the proceedings," the judges said. The imperative necessity at this stage, the judges said, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before them. The bench said, "such an interim exercise has become prudent in view of certain time frame exercise(s) that is in the offing in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, particular, the no-trust motion against the present government, which we are told is due for being taken up on July 18, 2019". "In these circumstances, the competing claims have to be balanced by an appropriate order, which according to us, should be to permit the Hon'ble Speaker of the House to decide on the request for resignations by the 15 Members of the House within such time frame as the Hon'ble Speaker may consider appropriate" they said. "We also take the view that in the present case, the discretion of the Hon`ble Speaker while deciding the above issue should not be fettered by any direction or observation of this Court and the Hon'ble Speaker should be left free to decide the issue in accordance with Article 190," they added. The also observed that read with Rule 202 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Karnataka Legislative Assembly framed in exercise of the powers under Article 208 of the Constitution. "The order of the Hon'ble Speaker on the issue of the resignation, as and when passed, be placed before the Court. We also make it clear that until further orders the 15 Members of the Assembly, ought not to be compelled to participate in the proceedings of the ongoing session of the House and an option should be given to them that they can take part in the said proceedings or opt to remain out of the same. We order accordingly," the judges said.

Supreme Court verdict leaves Karnataka govt hanging by a thread

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-refuses-to-entertain-pil-seeking-guidelines-for-frisking-of-students-during-examinations-235264/amp">Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi</a> on Friday said that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be integrated into modern business strategy.

Speaking at the second annual Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Memorial Lecture in Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM), Gogoi said, "In order to achieve the goal of <a href="https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;q=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/mayawati-weakening-fight-for-social-justice-says-sp-after-bsps-alliance-snub-229997&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjijufPvrHjAhXRaN4KHa2hAKE4ChAWMAV6BAgCEAI&amp;usg=AOvVaw0KclMUvVLLb_dlDdKPEr7c">social justice</a> in the best possible manner, it is necessary that CSR is integrated into our modern business strategy so as to make it sustainable."

"We can do that by making our business adopt, demonstrate and practice more holistic approaches to business where financial drivers together with sustainable development performance like a social utility, environmental protection, and economic growth are incorporated into mainstream business strategy and are embedded in organisational values," Gogoi said.&nbsp;

He further said that CSR goes beyond charity and requires the companies and businesses to act beyond their legal obligations and to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns into a company`s business process.

"CSR at its best is about the corporate sector reaching out from within to society outside in order to benefit both business and social and physical environment from which it springs and within which it functions.&nbsp;

CSR does synergize social and business interests.&nbsp;

It is because of such interdependence of business and society in modern times that makes CSR exceedingly important and it is because of that reason that CSR has been made mandatory in our country," said Gogoi.

Terming the Companies Act 2013 as a historic milestone in the context of the growth of CSR, the CJI said the Act "provides an opportunity in the corporate sector to socialise its business operations.&nbsp;

The 2013 Act has introduced several provisions that will change the way Indian corporates do business and one such provision is spending on CSR activities.&nbsp;

Thus CSR which has largely been a voluntary contribution by corporates has now been mandated by law."

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi on Friday said that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be integrated into modern business strategy. Speaking at the second annual Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Memorial Lecture in Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM), Gogoi said, "In order to achieve the goal of social justice in the best possible manner, it is necessary that CSR is integrated into our modern business strategy so as to make it sustainable.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi on Friday said that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) should be integrated into modern business strategy. Speaking at the second annual Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Memorial Lecture in Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM), Gogoi said, "In order to achieve the goal of social justice in the best possible manner, it is necessary that CSR is integrated into our modern business strategy so as to make it sustainable." "We can do that by making our business adopt, demonstrate and practice more holistic approaches to business where financial drivers together with sustainable development performance like a social utility, environmental protection, and economic growth are incorporated into mainstream business strategy and are embedded in organisational values," Gogoi said. He further said that CSR goes beyond charity and requires the companies and businesses to act beyond their legal obligations and to integrate social, environmental and ethical concerns into a company`s business process. "CSR at its best is about the corporate sector reaching out from within to society outside in order to benefit both business and social and physical environment from which it springs and within which it functions. CSR does synergize social and business interests. It is because of such interdependence of business and society in modern times that makes CSR exceedingly important and it is because of that reason that CSR has been made mandatory in our country," said Gogoi. Terming the Companies Act 2013 as a historic milestone in the context of the growth of CSR, the CJI said the Act "provides an opportunity in the corporate sector to socialise its business operations. The 2013 Act has introduced several provisions that will change the way Indian corporates do business and one such provision is spending on CSR activities. Thus CSR which has largely been a voluntary contribution by corporates has now been mandated by law."

CSR should be integrated into modern business strategy, says CJI Ranjan Gogoi

Chief justice of India(CJI) Ranjan&nbsp;Gogoi has said that independence of the judiciary is not a one-time pill but "state of affairs" that has to remain constant. He was speaking at the 14th SCO conference of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/all-you-need-to-know-about-shanghai-cooperation-organisation-227166">chief justices in Sochi, Russia</a>.&nbsp;

While emphasising on the dire need to develop and nurture leadership in the judiciary, the CJI said that every nation should aspire for an independent judicial system and independence is the "very soul" of a functioning judiciary.

He explained countries that support and invest in a strong judicial infrastructure are more likely to become nations with stable governments and administrations.&nbsp;

On India experience, he said, executive and judiciary enjoy healthy relationship of mutual respect.

Other Indian Supreme court judges who participated in the meet were Justice V.N.Ramana, Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice M.R.Shah.&nbsp;

On Monday, CJI Gogoi met Russian chief justice Vyacheslav Lebedev during which he said he would look forward to learn from other SCO member states on fast disposal of cases.&nbsp;

He said, the Indian judicial system can absorb practices such as mediation, out of court settlement to resolve pendency of cases, which Indian courts have highest among the world.

The SCO Supreme court judges conference ended with a declaration for further promotion of cooperation among judicial bodies of SCO countries.

Chief justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has said that independence of the judiciary is not a one-time pill but "state of affairs" that has to remain constant. He was speaking at the 14th SCO conference of chief justices in Sochi, Russia.

Chief justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has said that independence of the judiciary is not a one-time pill but "state of affairs" that has to remain constant. He was speaking at the 14th SCO conference of chief justices in Sochi, Russia. While emphasising on the dire need to develop and nurture leadership in the judiciary, the CJI said that every nation should aspire for an independent judicial system and independence is the "very soul" of a functioning judiciary. He explained countries that support and invest in a strong judicial infrastructure are more likely to become nations with stable governments and administrations. On India experience, he said, executive and judiciary enjoy healthy relationship of mutual respect. Other Indian Supreme court judges who participated in the meet were Justice V.N.Ramana, Justice D.Y.Chandrachud and Justice M.R.Shah. On Monday, CJI Gogoi met Russian chief justice Vyacheslav Lebedev during which he said he would look forward to learn from other SCO member states on fast disposal of cases. He said, the Indian judicial system can absorb practices such as mediation, out of court settlement to resolve pendency of cases, which Indian courts have highest among the world. The SCO Supreme court judges conference ended with a declaration for further promotion of cooperation among judicial bodies of SCO countries.

Independence of judiciary not a one-time pill, says CJI Gogoi at SCO conference

Justice NV Ramana, part of three-member in-house inquiry panel set up to examine the allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, recused himself from it on Thursday.

WION Gravitas: Sexual harassment allegations against CJI

Supreme Court today rejected former CBI interim chief&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/the-curious-case-of-plea-challenging-appointment-of-interim-cbi-chief-m-nageswara-rao-192498">M Nageswara Rao's</a> "unqualified" and "unconditional apology" in the Bihar shelter home case.

India's top court sentenced Rao till the rising of court and imposed fine of Rs 1 lakh.&nbsp;

The court had issued the notice to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cbi-director-nageswara-rao-transfers-20-officers-191880">Rao for transferring joint director</a> A K Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home case. The top court said additional director Nageswara Rao was aware of apex court directions that CBI officer cannot be transferred without its consent.&nbsp;

"If this is not contempt of court then what is, the top court asked, adding, "his attitude has been, I have done what I had to do."

Supreme Court said Nageswara Rao and CBI legal officer had committed contempt of court.

"Go to one corner of court and sit down till the court rises," Supreme Court told Rao and DoP Dhansu Ram.&nbsp;&nbsp;

In Rao's defence, Attorney General&nbsp;Venugopal said&nbsp;Nageswara Rao has put himself at the mercy of the court and has had an unblemished career as a police officer.

Rao on Monday had admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he had committed a "mistake" in transferring Sharma and apologised to the top court, saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders.

Rao had filed an affidavit in response to the contempt notice issued to him on February 7th.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi had asked for his "unconditional apology" and detailed affidavit after he transferred former joint director AK Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home sexual abuse case.

In the last hearing, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had said: “We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with the order of the Supreme Court of India. God help you! Never play with SC’s order”. 
&nbsp; 
“I don’t think any of us have felt the need (talks about fellow judges) to invoke our authority for contempt. I believe that the dignity of the court has to be maintained. This is blatant!”, CJI Gogoi said, adding,"this is suo moto contempt against Nageshwar Rao. The charge against him he did not withstand the orders of this court.”&nbsp;

Supreme Court today rejected former CBI interim chief M Nageswara Rao's "unqualified" and "unconditional apology" in the Bihar shelter home case. India's top court sentenced Rao till the rising of court and imposed fine of Rs 1 lakh.

Supreme Court today rejected former CBI interim chief M Nageswara Rao's "unqualified" and "unconditional apology" in the Bihar shelter home case. India's top court sentenced Rao till the rising of court and imposed fine of Rs 1 lakh. The court had issued the notice to Rao for transferring joint director A K Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home case. The top court said additional director Nageswara Rao was aware of apex court directions that CBI officer cannot be transferred without its consent. "If this is not contempt of court then what is, the top court asked, adding, "his attitude has been, I have done what I had to do." Supreme Court said Nageswara Rao and CBI legal officer had committed contempt of court. "Go to one corner of court and sit down till the court rises," Supreme Court told Rao and DoP Dhansu Ram. In Rao's defence, Attorney General Venugopal said Nageswara Rao has put himself at the mercy of the court and has had an unblemished career as a police officer. Rao on Monday had admitted that as interim chief of the CBI he had committed a "mistake" in transferring Sharma and apologised to the top court, saying he had no intention to circumvent its orders. Rao had filed an affidavit in response to the contempt notice issued to him on February 7th. CJI Ranjan Gogoi had asked for his "unconditional apology" and detailed affidavit after he transferred former joint director AK Sharma who was probing the Bihar shelter home sexual abuse case. In the last hearing, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had said: “We are going to take it very very seriously. You have played with the order of the Supreme Court of India. God help you! Never play with SC’s order”. “I don’t think any of us have felt the need (talks about fellow judges) to invoke our authority for contempt. I believe that the dignity of the court has to be maintained. This is blatant!”, CJI Gogoi said, adding,"this is suo moto contempt against Nageshwar Rao. The charge against him he did not withstand the orders of this court.”

Supreme Court holds CBI ex-interim director Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt; fines Rs 1 lakh

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-supreme-court-bench-to-hear-ayodhya-title-suit-on-january-10-188180">reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench</a> including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;

The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case. Justice Lalit's recusal occurred after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994.

Although Dhawan hadn't demanded Justice Lalit's recusal but he told Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench to step out of the bench.

The five-judge bench will now constitute of CJI Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;The court will hear the case on January 29th.

The court had directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages.&nbsp;

The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years.&nbsp;

The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board.&nbsp;

The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case.

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case. Justice Lalit's recusal occurred after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994. Although Dhawan hadn't demanded Justice Lalit's recusal but he told Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench to step out of the bench. The five-judge bench will now constitute of CJI Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The court will hear the case on January 29th. The court had directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages. The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years. The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board. The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.

CJI Gogoi reconstitutes Ayodhya bench; two judges added

After Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-sikri-wants-controversy-to-die-senior-lawyers-say-unfair-to-target-him-190295">Justice AK Sikri has now recused</a> himself from hearing lawyer Prashant Bhushan's plea challenging the government's appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI chief.&nbsp;

While Bhushan's NGO Common Cause stated categorically in its petition that Rao's appointment was not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee - comprising the prime minister, the leader of the single largest opposition party, and the Chief Justice of India - the plea went on to say that it in fact "appears that the committee was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act".&nbsp;

When the matter was posted for hearing before CJI Gogoi's court, it was sent to court number 2, i.e. Justice Sikri's court, since CJI Gogoi is part of the selection panel that has to choose a new CBI chief.&nbsp;

Justice Sikri, however, also refused to hear the plea, and recused himself.&nbsp;

"The matter raises very interesting and important questions but for some reason&nbsp;I can't take up the matter. I can only say I wish I could have taken up this matter. Thanks for having faith in me but please understand my position," Justice Sikri said.&nbsp;

The reason Justice Sikri recused himself was because&nbsp;a few days ago&nbsp;CJI Gogoi had deputed Justice Sikri to the panel that had decided the fate of former CBI chief Alok Verma. Justice Sikri had agreed to Verma's ouster, causing a stir in legal circles.&nbsp;

Next came news reports that the government had nominated Justice Sikri to a plum post in London after his retirement. The resulting furore and speculation in the media of a possible quid pro quo led to Justice Sikri turning down the government offer.&nbsp;

After Justice Sikri's recusal from the case, court no 3 will now hear the matter.&nbsp;

Many suggest CJI Gogoi's decision to send the matter to court 2 seemed to have turned things around because it&nbsp;was a futile attempt, partially knowing Justice Sikri's recusal after he&nbsp;refused to take up the government's London offer.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Gogoi meanwhile is still to assign a bench to hear the Common Cause plea, which has also asked the court to issue an appropriate writ on the appointment of a CBI director. The plea has asked the court for direction that ensures transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection, and appointment of the CBI director.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

After Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice AK Sikri has now recused himself from hearing lawyer Prashant Bhushan's plea challenging the government's appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI chief.

After Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice AK Sikri has now recused himself from hearing lawyer Prashant Bhushan's plea challenging the government's appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim CBI chief. While Bhushan's NGO Common Cause stated categorically in its petition that Rao's appointment was not made on the basis of recommendations of the high-powered selection committee - comprising the prime minister, the leader of the single largest opposition party, and the Chief Justice of India - the plea went on to say that it in fact "appears that the committee was completely bypassed and had no role in the appointment of Nageswara Rao, thereby rendering the appointment illegal as it is in violation of the procedure for appointment of Director, CBI laid down in the DSPE (Delhi Special Police Establishment) Act". When the matter was posted for hearing before CJI Gogoi's court, it was sent to court number 2, i.e. Justice Sikri's court, since CJI Gogoi is part of the selection panel that has to choose a new CBI chief. Justice Sikri, however, also refused to hear the plea, and recused himself. "The matter raises very interesting and important questions but for some reason I can't take up the matter. I can only say I wish I could have taken up this matter. Thanks for having faith in me but please understand my position," Justice Sikri said. The reason Justice Sikri recused himself was because a few days ago CJI Gogoi had deputed Justice Sikri to the panel that had decided the fate of former CBI chief Alok Verma. Justice Sikri had agreed to Verma's ouster, causing a stir in legal circles. Next came news reports that the government had nominated Justice Sikri to a plum post in London after his retirement. The resulting furore and speculation in the media of a possible quid pro quo led to Justice Sikri turning down the government offer. After Justice Sikri's recusal from the case, court no 3 will now hear the matter. Many suggest CJI Gogoi's decision to send the matter to court 2 seemed to have turned things around because it was a futile attempt, partially knowing Justice Sikri's recusal after he refused to take up the government's London offer. Chief Justice Gogoi meanwhile is still to assign a bench to hear the Common Cause plea, which has also asked the court to issue an appropriate writ on the appointment of a CBI director. The plea has asked the court for direction that ensures transparency in the process of shortlisting, selection, and appointment of the CBI director.

The curious case of plea challenging appointment of interim CBI chief M Nageswara Rao

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

cji-gogoi

Cji Gogoi, News on Cji Gogoi, stories on Cji Gogoi, articles on Cji Gogoi, Cji Gogoi stories at Wion, Cji Gogoi news, Cji Gogoi latest news

cji gogoi