Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this.

"I saw the allegations levelled against the Chief Justice of India, and the clean chit given to him by Supreme Court's in-house committee. I am seeing all this in the media because it's a secret report and I have not seen it. But I am shocked to see that even the people sitting in top position can be attacked and maligned like this," <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-general-elections-2019/bjp-will-win-lok-sabha-polls-opposition-can-keep-dreaming-pm-modi-to-wion-217331">PM Modi told WION Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary</a>.

A woman staffer (an entry-level cleric), who worked at the Supreme Court, accused the CJI of sexually harassing her. An in-house committee was formed to look into the issue and it gave clean chit to CJI Gogoi, who appeared before the panel on May 1.

Sources later said that the complaint was part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI. The woman staffer worked as junior court assistant for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI, said sources. They also said that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking a bribe in the name of providing employment in the Supreme Court.

The sources further added that the conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, the Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress president Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/bjp-will-win-lok-sabha-polls-opposition-can-keep-dreaming-pm-modi-to-wion-217350/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about an unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said.

The in-house committee led by Justice SA Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed concern over the sexual harassment allegations levelled against Chief Justice of India (CJI), Ranjan Gogoi. The PM said he is shocked to see the country's top position being maligned like this. "I saw the allegations levelled against the Chief Justice of India, and the clean chit given to him by Supreme Court's in-house committee. I am seeing all this in the media because it's a secret report and I have not seen it. But I am shocked to see that even the people sitting in top position can be attacked and maligned like this," PM Modi told WION Editor-in-Chief Sudhir Chaudhary. A woman staffer (an entry-level cleric), who worked at the Supreme Court, accused the CJI of sexually harassing her. An in-house committee was formed to look into the issue and it gave clean chit to CJI Gogoi, who appeared before the panel on May 1. Sources later said that the complaint was part of a conspiracy to malign the image of the CJI. The woman staffer worked as junior court assistant for around seven weeks and during this period, had no occasion to meet the CJI, said sources. They also said that the woman never said anything about the alleged sexual harassment when she was arrested in connection with taking a bribe in the name of providing employment in the Supreme Court. The sources further added that the conspiracy was hatched because the CJI's bench handled several high profile cases such as the Rafale case, the Ayodhya case, the case of CBI Director's appointment as also sub-judice cases such as contempt case against Congress president Rahul Gandhi and other constitutional matters which did not go well with certain quarters. × They also questioned why the complainant is skipping participation in the procedural inquiries repeatedly. "She participated in the proceedings for three days and when she was supposed to answer the queries about an unexplained delay of more than six months, she concocted reasons to walk out," sources said. The in-house committee led by Justice SA Bobde had on Monday given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case. The committee also comprises Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee said it found no substance in the sexual harassment allegations against the CJI. The Bar Council of India (BCI) had earlier said that there was "something fishy" in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by her against CJI Gogoi. In a statement directed to members of legal fraternity, judges and people of the country, the BCI claimed that there was some very strong support behind the complaint against the CJI.

Shocked to see CJI's image being maligned: PM Modi to WION

Shocked to see CJI's image being maligned: PM Modi

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court Wednesday directed the CBI, IB and Delhi Police chiefs to appear before it and meet in chambers the judges hearing a lawyer's claims of a larger conspiracy to frame CJI Ranjan Gogoi on allegations of sexual harassment.&nbsp;

The matter is being heard a three-judge special bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra.

The bench said it will meet the CBI and IB directors and the Delhi Police commissioner in "secret".

"It is not an enquiry. We are meeting these officers in secret. We don't want any evidence to be disclosed," the bench also comprising justices R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta said.

The matter relates to the independence of the judiciary in the country, the bench said.

Mishra has termed the entire episode as "very disturbing".

It directed that the officers will meet the judges in the chamber at 12:30 pm and the bench will reassemble to hear the matter again at 3 pm.

The lawyer, Utsav Singh Bains, has submitted a report in the Supreme Court regarding his claims that there was a conspiracy to frame the Chief Justice of India in a sexual harassment case. 
The court perused the report of the lawyer, which was filed in a sealed cover, about allegations that there are some who manage verdicts.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court Wednesday directed the CBI, IB and Delhi Police chiefs to appear before it and meet in chambers the judges hearing a lawyer's claims of a larger conspiracy to frame CJI Ranjan Gogoi on allegations of sexual harassment.

The Supreme Court Wednesday directed the CBI, IB and Delhi Police chiefs to appear before it and meet in chambers the judges hearing a lawyer's claims of a larger conspiracy to frame CJI Ranjan Gogoi on allegations of sexual harassment. The matter is being heard a three-judge special bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra. The bench said it will meet the CBI and IB directors and the Delhi Police commissioner in "secret". "It is not an enquiry. We are meeting these officers in secret. We don't want any evidence to be disclosed," the bench also comprising justices R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta said. The matter relates to the independence of the judiciary in the country, the bench said. Mishra has termed the entire episode as "very disturbing". It directed that the officers will meet the judges in the chamber at 12:30 pm and the bench will reassemble to hear the matter again at 3 pm. The lawyer, Utsav Singh Bains, has submitted a report in the Supreme Court regarding his claims that there was a conspiracy to frame the Chief Justice of India in a sexual harassment case. The court perused the report of the lawyer, which was filed in a sealed cover, about allegations that there are some who manage verdicts.

Sexual harassment allegations against CJI: Supreme Court asks CBI, IB, Delhi Police chiefs to appear

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public. Now, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether the office of the Chief Justice Of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Attorney General KK Venugopal argued before the constitution bench that such RTI disclosures might affect the independence of the judiciary.

"The law (the Right to Information Act) is in existence since 2005 and it sets out as to what would be the rights to information and what would be the restrictions on that right. A totally new environment has come into existence by passing this law which invokes the constitutional provisions," Venugopal said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

The constitution bench — headed by Chief Justice of India <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/go-to-shillong-it-is-a-cool-place-cji-ranjan-gogoi-to-cbi-kolkata-police-commissioner-195460">Ranjan Gogoi</a> — was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the CJI’s office was a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. In other words, that it comes under the purview of the act.&nbsp;

The bench is also examining the crucial question of whether communications/ file notings between the collegium and the government on the appointment and transfer of judges come under the act, as do judges' assets.&nbsp;

"Independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure and even while deciding on this Act it had to be done by keeping in mind the various constitutional provisions. If information under RTI is sought relating to official secrets, then it will have to be seen to what extent can the right to information be allowed," Venugopal said. &nbsp;

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public.

Two years ago, India's Supreme Court had declared that the decisions of its collegium — the body of SC judges that decides the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and the country's high courts — will for the first time be made public. Now, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is examining whether the office of the Chief Justice Of India comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Attorney General KK Venugopal argued before the constitution bench that such RTI disclosures might affect the independence of the judiciary. "The law (the Right to Information Act) is in existence since 2005 and it sets out as to what would be the rights to information and what would be the restrictions on that right. A totally new environment has come into existence by passing this law which invokes the constitutional provisions," Venugopal said on Wednesday. The constitution bench — headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi — was hearing an appeal filed by the Supreme Court secretary general against the January 2010 verdict of the Delhi High Court which had declared that the CJI’s office was a “public authority” under the RTI Act, 2005. In other words, that it comes under the purview of the act. The bench is also examining the crucial question of whether communications/ file notings between the collegium and the government on the appointment and transfer of judges come under the act, as do judges' assets. "Independence of judiciary is part of the basic structure and even while deciding on this Act it had to be done by keeping in mind the various constitutional provisions. If information under RTI is sought relating to official secrets, then it will have to be seen to what extent can the right to information be allowed," Venugopal said.

Does office of CJI come under RTI Act? Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice examines

As many as 55 businessmen of Nepal have parked Nepali Rs 52,072,774,000 billion in Swiss Banks by defying the law of the land, the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) has claimed."Nepal`s law bars Nepalis from investing abroad.

Our study found that nearly a dozen business groups are involved in channelling their illegal wealth abroad and bringing the money back into the country in the name of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)," the CIJ stated in its editorial after its reports were released Wednesday night.

As per the report's findings, Nepali investors have stashed a whopping Nepali Rs 52,072,774,000 billion in Swiss Banks.

The report states that the trend of sending black money into the Swiss Banks while defying the existing laws had started in 1996, the very same year when the Maoist insurgency-hit the nation.

Prominent among those whose names have appeared in the CIJ report include former lawmaker Birendra Mahato in association with Niraj Govinda Shrestha, Upendra Mahato, Romeo Abdo; former President of NRNA Upendra Mahato, wife Samata Nepal and businessman (partner) Niraj Govinda Shrestha who have made investments in British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, Belarus, England, and so on, and hotelier Rama Malla in partnership with John Morrison Atwater in UK amongst others.

"According to details released in 2017 by Swiss National Bank, Nepalis deposited 11,042,000 Swiss francs (Nepali Rs 1,247,746,000) in Swiss banks in 1996. Over the period of 10 years, the total saving amount of Nepalis rose to a whopping 240,272,000 Swiss francs (Rs 2,715,736,000). Remarkably, after the end of the conflict, the amount deposited by Nepalis for the next two years saw a dramatic decline," the CIJ said in its report.

"In 2006 alone, Nepalis deposited 36,727,000 Swiss francs (Rs 4,150,151,000) in Swiss banks. In 2007, the savings fell to 34,500,010 Swiss francs (Rs 3,899,630,000)," the CIJ stated in its sub-report entitled 'The Nepalis Who Deposited Their Suspicious Wealth in Swiss Banks.'

The investigation has further revealed that two-thirds of the FDI in Nepal have been sourced from the British Virgin Islands.

"The survey report on FDI in Nepal published by the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) in June 2018 said `FDI totalling Rs 173,678,400,000 has been endowed to the industries currently operating in Nepal."

"This indicates that more than 60 per cent of the FDI share amounting to Rs 82,655,700,000 in Nepal comes from 'tax haven'&nbsp;countries. The British Virgin Islands and the nearby countries alone have an investment totalling Rs 62,779,700,000 in Nepal," the report stated.

The investigation, on the other hand, has revealed that the statistics maintained by the Department of Industries (DoI), Government of Nepal are not accurate and the companies boasting of the FDI are functional, have ceased to function or have been simply registered.

The investigation also revealed that the DoI had approved FDI equivalent to (Nepali) Rs 282.91 billion, out of which (Nepali) Rs 66.9 billion has been sourced from tax havens.

A total of 689 companies from the 17 tax havens were registered with the authority seeking FDI."The Government of Nepal has given FDI approval to 17 'tax haven'&nbsp;countries.

The permitted investment amount totals Rs 66,901,843,284. On the contrary, evidence shows there has been a total investment of Rs 82.657 billion from these countries, which exceeds the approved amount by Rs 15,755,156,716. A question arises: What caused this difference?" the report states.&nbsp;

As many as 55 businessmen of Nepal have parked Nepali Rs 52,072,774,000 billion in Swiss Banks by defying the law of the land, the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) has claimed.

As many as 55 businessmen of Nepal have parked Nepali Rs 52,072,774,000 billion in Swiss Banks by defying the law of the land, the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) has claimed."Nepal`s law bars Nepalis from investing abroad. Our study found that nearly a dozen business groups are involved in channelling their illegal wealth abroad and bringing the money back into the country in the name of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)," the CIJ stated in its editorial after its reports were released Wednesday night. As per the report's findings, Nepali investors have stashed a whopping Nepali Rs 52,072,774,000 billion in Swiss Banks. The report states that the trend of sending black money into the Swiss Banks while defying the existing laws had started in 1996, the very same year when the Maoist insurgency-hit the nation. Prominent among those whose names have appeared in the CIJ report include former lawmaker Birendra Mahato in association with Niraj Govinda Shrestha, Upendra Mahato, Romeo Abdo; former President of NRNA Upendra Mahato, wife Samata Nepal and businessman (partner) Niraj Govinda Shrestha who have made investments in British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, Belarus, England, and so on, and hotelier Rama Malla in partnership with John Morrison Atwater in UK amongst others. "According to details released in 2017 by Swiss National Bank, Nepalis deposited 11,042,000 Swiss francs (Nepali Rs 1,247,746,000) in Swiss banks in 1996. Over the period of 10 years, the total saving amount of Nepalis rose to a whopping 240,272,000 Swiss francs (Rs 2,715,736,000). Remarkably, after the end of the conflict, the amount deposited by Nepalis for the next two years saw a dramatic decline," the CIJ said in its report. "In 2006 alone, Nepalis deposited 36,727,000 Swiss francs (Rs 4,150,151,000) in Swiss banks. In 2007, the savings fell to 34,500,010 Swiss francs (Rs 3,899,630,000)," the CIJ stated in its sub-report entitled 'The Nepalis Who Deposited Their Suspicious Wealth in Swiss Banks.' The investigation has further revealed that two-thirds of the FDI in Nepal have been sourced from the British Virgin Islands. "The survey report on FDI in Nepal published by the Nepal Rastra Bank (NRB) in June 2018 said `FDI totalling Rs 173,678,400,000 has been endowed to the industries currently operating in Nepal." "This indicates that more than 60 per cent of the FDI share amounting to Rs 82,655,700,000 in Nepal comes from 'tax haven' countries. The British Virgin Islands and the nearby countries alone have an investment totalling Rs 62,779,700,000 in Nepal," the report stated. The investigation, on the other hand, has revealed that the statistics maintained by the Department of Industries (DoI), Government of Nepal are not accurate and the companies boasting of the FDI are functional, have ceased to function or have been simply registered. The investigation also revealed that the DoI had approved FDI equivalent to (Nepali) Rs 282.91 billion, out of which (Nepali) Rs 66.9 billion has been sourced from tax havens. A total of 689 companies from the 17 tax havens were registered with the authority seeking FDI."The Government of Nepal has given FDI approval to 17 'tax haven' countries. The permitted investment amount totals Rs 66,901,843,284. On the contrary, evidence shows there has been a total investment of Rs 82.657 billion from these countries, which exceeds the approved amount by Rs 15,755,156,716. A question arises: What caused this difference?" the report states.

55 businessmen of Nepal have stashed billions in Swiss Banks: CIJ

Much water has flown under the bridge since the unprecedented presser on January 12, 2018, by four senior judges of the Supreme Court who had raised a litany of problems, including the issue of assigning of cases, plaguing the apex court.

The historical press conference was held by four judges Justices (retired) J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Ranjan Gogoi (current CJI). 
The then CJI Justice Dipak Misra has also retired.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took over from Justice Misra, while the three judges-- Justices J Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph and Madan B Lokur -- have superannuated from service.

November end last year saw allegations against Justice Misra, with one of the judges again dropping a bombshell saying "someone from outside controlled the then CJI".

The judges had said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.

Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges had said in a letter to the then CJI Justice Misra.

The apex court, under the new CJI, has witnessed a spate of appointments to various high courts and the top court as well.

Four new judges joined the top court in November last year, increasing its strength to 28 against the sanctioned 31.

Recently, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, and Justice

Sanjiv Khanna of the Delhi High Court for elevation as judges to the apex court.

The five-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Gogoi, took the decision at its meeting on January 10.&nbsp;

Much water has flown under the bridge since the unprecedented presser on January 12, 2018, by four senior judges of the Supreme Court who had raised a litany of problems, including the issue of assigning of cases, plaguing the apex court.

Much water has flown under the bridge since the unprecedented presser on January 12, 2018, by four senior judges of the Supreme Court who had raised a litany of problems, including the issue of assigning of cases, plaguing the apex court. The historical press conference was held by four judges Justices (retired) J Chelameswar, Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Ranjan Gogoi (current CJI). The then CJI Justice Dipak Misra has also retired. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took over from Justice Misra, while the three judges-- Justices J Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph and Madan B Lokur -- have superannuated from service. November end last year saw allegations against Justice Misra, with one of the judges again dropping a bombshell saying "someone from outside controlled the then CJI". The judges had said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges had said in a letter to the then CJI Justice Misra. The apex court, under the new CJI, has witnessed a spate of appointments to various high courts and the top court as well. Four new judges joined the top court in November last year, increasing its strength to 28 against the sanctioned 31. Recently, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, the chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Delhi High Court for elevation as judges to the apex court. The five-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Gogoi, took the decision at its meeting on January 10.

Developments in apex court a year after January 12 presser by Supreme Court judges

The Supreme Court Wednesday said its order restraining acting CBI director M Nageswara Rao from taking any policy decision does not mean that the agency would stop investigating the cases. 
Advertising

A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said the order that Rao should not take policy decisions was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi but it did not in any way mean that the CBI would not investigate any matter.

A bench headed by the CJI, while hearing a petition by CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma, who has challenged the Centre’s decision to divest him of his duties and sending him on leave, had earlier said that the acting CBI Director would not take major policy decisions.

This issue cropped up before the apex court on Wednesday when it was hearing the case of alleged sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in Bihar.

The court had on Tuesday asked the CBI counsel to take instructions as to whether the agency was ready to take over the probe into cases of abuse in 16 shelter homes in Bihar.

On Wednesday, the council told the bench, “The interim director has told me that court number one (of the apex court) has asked him not to take any policy decision. Tomorrow, the CBI case is coming up in court number one.”

To this, the bench, also comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, said: “It (order) does say that he (Rao) will not take any policy decision but that does not mean that all investigation will stop.

“Tomorrow’s matter (before the CJI-led bench) has nothing to do with this, absolutely nothing. You find out if the CBI is ready to take up the investigation. Tell us after five minutes.”

Later, the CBI’s counsel said he has taken instructions from the acting director and “in-principle” the CBI was ready to take up all these cases for investigation.

The apex court directed the CBI to conduct a probe into the allegations of physical and sexual abuse of inmates in 16 shelter homes in Bihar which were flagged in a report of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

The report had highlighted rampant sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in the state.

The Supreme Court Wednesday said its order restraining acting CBI director M Nageswara Rao from taking any policy decision does not mean that the agency would stop investigating the cases.

The Supreme Court Wednesday said its order restraining acting CBI director M Nageswara Rao from taking any policy decision does not mean that the agency would stop investigating the cases. Advertising A bench headed by Justice Madan B Lokur said the order that Rao should not take policy decisions was passed by a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi but it did not in any way mean that the CBI would not investigate any matter. A bench headed by the CJI, while hearing a petition by CBI Director Alok Kumar Verma, who has challenged the Centre’s decision to divest him of his duties and sending him on leave, had earlier said that the acting CBI Director would not take major policy decisions. This issue cropped up before the apex court on Wednesday when it was hearing the case of alleged sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in Bihar. The court had on Tuesday asked the CBI counsel to take instructions as to whether the agency was ready to take over the probe into cases of abuse in 16 shelter homes in Bihar. On Wednesday, the council told the bench, “The interim director has told me that court number one (of the apex court) has asked him not to take any policy decision. Tomorrow, the CBI case is coming up in court number one.” To this, the bench, also comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and Deepak Gupta, said: “It (order) does say that he (Rao) will not take any policy decision but that does not mean that all investigation will stop. “Tomorrow’s matter (before the CJI-led bench) has nothing to do with this, absolutely nothing. You find out if the CBI is ready to take up the investigation. Tell us after five minutes.” Later, the CBI’s counsel said he has taken instructions from the acting director and “in-principle” the CBI was ready to take up all these cases for investigation. The apex court directed the CBI to conduct a probe into the allegations of physical and sexual abuse of inmates in 16 shelter homes in Bihar which were flagged in a report of Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The report had highlighted rampant sexual and physical abuse of inmates in several shelter homes in the state.

CJI’s order on interim CBI chief does not stop agency from probing cases: Supreme Court

The Centre's clearing of names of four chief justices of high courts for elevation as Supreme Court judges within 48 hours of the recommendation has left Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi awe-struck. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The apex court collegium, headed by the CJI and comprising its four-senior most judges, had on October 30 recommended to the Centre the names of the four judges for the elevation, and they took the oath of office on Friday. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"We sent the recommendations at about 11 o'clock on Wednesday and on Wednesday evening, when I was informed that the medical (test of the judges to be elevated) has been done, I myself was very shocked. I couldn't believe it. I said what you are saying. I am as much in awe as you are," the CJI said in an informal chat with journalists covering the apex court. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
When a senior journalist asked Justice Gogoi that he has created history as he was the first person from the north-east zone to become the CJI and he got cleared the names of judges from the Centre within 48 hours, he said that the best person would be the Law Minister to answer this. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The CJI, who on Thursday inaugurated the Centre for Research and Planning, an "in-house think tank" also made an important announcement that the apex court would provide translated copies of its judgments to litigants in their mother tongue if they are unable to understand English. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"To start with, we may do it in Hindi," the CJI said. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The CJI, who was accompanied by fourth senior most judge Justice S A Bobde and his successor during his interaction with the scribes, dismissed the query as to how he was sure that Justice Bobde would succeed him. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"Yes of course. There can be no doubt on that," Justice Gogoi said and outlined his idea to tackle the cases by the benches of different strength in future. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
He said that on Mondays and Fridays, the court takes up miscellaneous cases and there was no need of many three-judge benches and this would increase the number of courts, he said. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
He also made light of the recent controversy in which second senior most judge Akil Kureshi of the Gujarat High Court could not become the Acting Chief Justice as the Centre notified his junior Justice AS Dave to the post. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The post of Acting Chief Justice in the Gujarat High Court had fallen vacant due to the elevation of Justice Subhash Reddy to the Supreme Court. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"We all make mistakes and we correct ourselves. Kureshi is the senior-most judge. There is no mystery in it," the CJI said, adding that a second notification corrected the mistake. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Now Justice Kureshi will remain the Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court till November 14 and he would be joining the Bombay High Court a day later. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
In response to the query that the Centre has not honoured the recommendations of the collegium to appoint nearly 40 judges in high courts, the CJI said, "I did not say it has not been honoured by the government. I will not say it has not been honoured. It has been kept pending. So that's around 40. Maybe it could be a little more." 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
On the issue of "in-house think tank", the CJI said, it will help in "judicial reforms, judicial jurisprudence and judicial education". 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
"We have to evolve. Nobody is denying the fact that there is a need for judicial reforms. I have ideas. I have ideas which are being implemented from time to time but these are the people which will be doing the research on the prevailing system in so many jurisprudence and so many jurisdictions," he said. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The think tank would give the judges inputs, and academician Mohan Gopal and his small team will give us the "inputs and the inputs will be debated by the jurists. If they are fine we will implement it". 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
The CJI said that it wanted to help the litigants who lose their properties after a prolonged legal battle and have been given a judgement in English which they cannot even understand. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
He stressed on the need for providing judgements in vernacular languages but rued manpower crunch and other resources in implementing the idea. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

"At this moment it is very difficult to say whether it will be translated in other languages as well. We have a gross deficiency of resources," he said.

The Centre's clearing of names of four chief justices of high courts for elevation as Supreme Court judges within 48 hours of the recommendation has left Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi awe-struck.

The Centre's clearing of names of four chief justices of high courts for elevation as Supreme Court judges within 48 hours of the recommendation has left Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi awe-struck. The apex court collegium, headed by the CJI and comprising its four-senior most judges, had on October 30 recommended to the Centre the names of the four judges for the elevation, and they took the oath of office on Friday. "We sent the recommendations at about 11 o'clock on Wednesday and on Wednesday evening, when I was informed that the medical (test of the judges to be elevated) has been done, I myself was very shocked. I couldn't believe it. I said what you are saying. I am as much in awe as you are," the CJI said in an informal chat with journalists covering the apex court. When a senior journalist asked Justice Gogoi that he has created history as he was the first person from the north-east zone to become the CJI and he got cleared the names of judges from the Centre within 48 hours, he said that the best person would be the Law Minister to answer this. The CJI, who on Thursday inaugurated the Centre for Research and Planning, an "in-house think tank" also made an important announcement that the apex court would provide translated copies of its judgments to litigants in their mother tongue if they are unable to understand English. "To start with, we may do it in Hindi," the CJI said. The CJI, who was accompanied by fourth senior most judge Justice S A Bobde and his successor during his interaction with the scribes, dismissed the query as to how he was sure that Justice Bobde would succeed him. "Yes of course. There can be no doubt on that," Justice Gogoi said and outlined his idea to tackle the cases by the benches of different strength in future. He said that on Mondays and Fridays, the court takes up miscellaneous cases and there was no need of many three-judge benches and this would increase the number of courts, he said. He also made light of the recent controversy in which second senior most judge Akil Kureshi of the Gujarat High Court could not become the Acting Chief Justice as the Centre notified his junior Justice AS Dave to the post. The post of Acting Chief Justice in the Gujarat High Court had fallen vacant due to the elevation of Justice Subhash Reddy to the Supreme Court. "We all make mistakes and we correct ourselves. Kureshi is the senior-most judge. There is no mystery in it," the CJI said, adding that a second notification corrected the mistake. Now Justice Kureshi will remain the Acting Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court till November 14 and he would be joining the Bombay High Court a day later. In response to the query that the Centre has not honoured the recommendations of the collegium to appoint nearly 40 judges in high courts, the CJI said, "I did not say it has not been honoured by the government. I will not say it has not been honoured. It has been kept pending. So that's around 40. Maybe it could be a little more." On the issue of "in-house think tank", the CJI said, it will help in "judicial reforms, judicial jurisprudence and judicial education". "We have to evolve. Nobody is denying the fact that there is a need for judicial reforms. I have ideas. I have ideas which are being implemented from time to time but these are the people which will be doing the research on the prevailing system in so many jurisprudence and so many jurisdictions," he said. The think tank would give the judges inputs, and academician Mohan Gopal and his small team will give us the "inputs and the inputs will be debated by the jurists. If they are fine we will implement it". The CJI said that it wanted to help the litigants who lose their properties after a prolonged legal battle and have been given a judgement in English which they cannot even understand. He stressed on the need for providing judgements in vernacular languages but rued manpower crunch and other resources in implementing the idea. "At this moment it is very difficult to say whether it will be translated in other languages as well. We have a gross deficiency of resources," he said.

CJI in awe as Centre clears names of 4 judges for elevation to SC in 48 hours

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date.

A welcome step by the new CJI

This is an excellent and welcome step. We should appreciate that. I always hold this view that biggest injustice is being perpetuated through this mentioning system, by virtue of which while about 50000 cases pending in the apex court gets adding on with long waiting periods and ever exploding dockets in the Court. Senior lawyers are able to muscle their cases to get priority hearing. More so in the recent past, if the trend is any indicator, the case of Urban Naxals getting relief within a day had set the cat amongst the pigeons.&nbsp;

Imposition of fees and charges

Indeed, in case this mentioning system is to be sustained it should be on more objective criteria. Since the time of the Supreme Court is a critical resource in the justice delivery system, I would suggest imposing exemplary fees/charges to be paid by the litigant to be allowed into the mentioning list itself.

Why not keep the fees at Rs 10,000, to begin with? This will enable some check on the tendency of lawyers and litigants to get priority hearing of their respective cases over the pending ones, and hence perpetuating the injustice to the waiting litigants as well as mitigating the docket explosion. Further, the likes of the Yakub Memon case, which gets mentioned in the middle of the night, the fees could be much higher. Similarly, the system could also prescribe a fee of high value for cases to be brought before the vacation judge.

Also in the other courts 
 
Having said that, this vice of mentioning and priority hearings is not limited to the apex court alone. Hence, any such imposition of the fees should be perpetuated to the judiciary below the Supreme Court, like the High Courts and the lower judiciary also. By this, we can certainly address the issue of pendency in court cases.&nbsp;

User charges 
 
In this context, it is a matter of record that the government is mulling over the imposition of user charges for services, which were generally deemed as gratis services. This has already been put in place in the health sector in some form. In the education sector, the private institutions have already taken over. In other infrastructure, like roads, we have toll charges. Water, Electricity and piped gas are billed as per the consumption level. It is therefore important that we introduce a kind of fees or user charges for getting priority hearings.

Fees/fines and charges in courts 
 
At the same time, it is not the mentioning alone which is the malaise contributing to the pendency of cases and docket explosion. There are many other factors. Take for example adjournments. Many times, adjournments are sought and granted because one of the leading lawyers is not prepared. I do not discourage this. But his non-preparation adds up to the pendency and pressure on the courts. An adjournment charge should be imposed on such cases so that this trend is discouraged overwhelmingly. In addition, the other party should be compensated with appropriate costs. This is in the discretion of the presiding judges, who are reluctant to invoke their discretion. These costs should be brought in the relevant court rules.

Similarly, is the trend of pass overs. At times, on the pretext that the leading advocate is engaged in some other court, there is a tendency of deputing a junior lawyer to seek pass over. A modest fee of maybe Rs 500 should be imposed. An enabling provision should be made in the relevant Court Rules.

Mediation and other alternative methods 
 
It is further a fact that most cases are resolvable through dialogue between the parties. An enabling provision empowering the courts to refer the parties, with their respective consents, is available in the Civil Procedure Code. Many Honourable Judges also are in favour. But at times the litigants do not cooperate.

In this context, in one of my interaction with a former Chief Justice of India, during an informal meeting, I threw open this. At that time he was the incumbent Chief Justice of India. He immediately responded that he would welcome that. But in India most people litigate for their (in chaste Tamil, he said meesai) moustaches, meaning self-respect or esteem.

In case a lawyer, when approached, finding no merit in the case tenders honest advice, he will have to wind up his practice. So, the common recourse lawyers take is advising the litigant that the case incontestable. These are words of wisdom from a very excellent, erudite Chief Justice of India.

Hence, there should be a fee imposed on litigants for refusing any of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism references by the courts, using their powers as well as a failure of the parties to reach any settlement in mediation, as my good learned friend and excellent mediator at the Delhi Mediation Centre repeatedly have to record.

Explosion to grow

We have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Already the dockets are exploding. We have an elaborate procedure of recruitment of judges with a lead time of one year. Further, the resources in terms of other infrastructure cannot be provisioned with the speed even if we get the judges.

Hence, supply management of resources is constrained. At the same time, with growing education, the tendency for an assertion of rights whether real or illusory is expected to increase with its attendant aggregation to the problem of docket explosion. The Honourable Chief Justice has shown the path. Others have to follow it. One way is to control the demands on these resources. Let's begin.

State funds or Court replenishment Fund

All such fees collected should be accrued in the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective states, as the case may be. Or, it can be collected in an escrow account for re-investment into the judicial system of the country, calling it a cess instead of user charges, fine or fees.&nbsp;

It is possible that if these suggestions are factored into the relevant rules of the Court will go a long way in mitigating the endless wait for justice by litigants as well as resolving the issue of docket explosion in the courts in this country. 
 
(This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the <a href="http://zeenews.india.com/blogs/to-reduce-pending-cases-in-courts-fines-and-fees-are-a-good-way-to-go-2146799.html">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date.

The Honourable Chief Justice of India, Shri Ranjan Gogoi, began his tenure as Chief Justice on an excellent note. He flagged the issue of mentioning of cases before the Chief Justice to get an urgent hearing and disallowed stating that a system is being worked out to in the Supreme Court to list cases based on their filing date. A welcome step by the new CJI This is an excellent and welcome step. We should appreciate that. I always hold this view that biggest injustice is being perpetuated through this mentioning system, by virtue of which while about 50000 cases pending in the apex court gets adding on with long waiting periods and ever exploding dockets in the Court. Senior lawyers are able to muscle their cases to get priority hearing. More so in the recent past, if the trend is any indicator, the case of Urban Naxals getting relief within a day had set the cat amongst the pigeons. Imposition of fees and charges Indeed, in case this mentioning system is to be sustained it should be on more objective criteria. Since the time of the Supreme Court is a critical resource in the justice delivery system, I would suggest imposing exemplary fees/charges to be paid by the litigant to be allowed into the mentioning list itself. Why not keep the fees at Rs 10,000, to begin with? This will enable some check on the tendency of lawyers and litigants to get priority hearing of their respective cases over the pending ones, and hence perpetuating the injustice to the waiting litigants as well as mitigating the docket explosion. Further, the likes of the Yakub Memon case, which gets mentioned in the middle of the night, the fees could be much higher. Similarly, the system could also prescribe a fee of high value for cases to be brought before the vacation judge. Also in the other courts Having said that, this vice of mentioning and priority hearings is not limited to the apex court alone. Hence, any such imposition of the fees should be perpetuated to the judiciary below the Supreme Court, like the High Courts and the lower judiciary also. By this, we can certainly address the issue of pendency in court cases. User charges In this context, it is a matter of record that the government is mulling over the imposition of user charges for services, which were generally deemed as gratis services. This has already been put in place in the health sector in some form. In the education sector, the private institutions have already taken over. In other infrastructure, like roads, we have toll charges. Water, Electricity and piped gas are billed as per the consumption level. It is therefore important that we introduce a kind of fees or user charges for getting priority hearings. Fees/fines and charges in courts At the same time, it is not the mentioning alone which is the malaise contributing to the pendency of cases and docket explosion. There are many other factors. Take for example adjournments. Many times, adjournments are sought and granted because one of the leading lawyers is not prepared. I do not discourage this. But his non-preparation adds up to the pendency and pressure on the courts. An adjournment charge should be imposed on such cases so that this trend is discouraged overwhelmingly. In addition, the other party should be compensated with appropriate costs. This is in the discretion of the presiding judges, who are reluctant to invoke their discretion. These costs should be brought in the relevant court rules. Similarly, is the trend of pass overs. At times, on the pretext that the leading advocate is engaged in some other court, there is a tendency of deputing a junior lawyer to seek pass over. A modest fee of maybe Rs 500 should be imposed. An enabling provision should be made in the relevant Court Rules. Mediation and other alternative methods It is further a fact that most cases are resolvable through dialogue between the parties. An enabling provision empowering the courts to refer the parties, with their respective consents, is available in the Civil Procedure Code. Many Honourable Judges also are in favour. But at times the litigants do not cooperate. In this context, in one of my interaction with a former Chief Justice of India, during an informal meeting, I threw open this. At that time he was the incumbent Chief Justice of India. He immediately responded that he would welcome that. But in India most people litigate for their (in chaste Tamil, he said meesai) moustaches, meaning self-respect or esteem. In case a lawyer, when approached, finding no merit in the case tenders honest advice, he will have to wind up his practice. So, the common recourse lawyers take is advising the litigant that the case incontestable. These are words of wisdom from a very excellent, erudite Chief Justice of India. Hence, there should be a fee imposed on litigants for refusing any of the Alternative Dispute Mechanism references by the courts, using their powers as well as a failure of the parties to reach any settlement in mediation, as my good learned friend and excellent mediator at the Delhi Mediation Centre repeatedly have to record. Explosion to grow We have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. Already the dockets are exploding. We have an elaborate procedure of recruitment of judges with a lead time of one year. Further, the resources in terms of other infrastructure cannot be provisioned with the speed even if we get the judges. Hence, supply management of resources is constrained. At the same time, with growing education, the tendency for an assertion of rights whether real or illusory is expected to increase with its attendant aggregation to the problem of docket explosion. The Honourable Chief Justice has shown the path. Others have to follow it. One way is to control the demands on these resources. Let's begin. State funds or Court replenishment Fund All such fees collected should be accrued in the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective states, as the case may be. Or, it can be collected in an escrow account for re-investment into the judicial system of the country, calling it a cess instead of user charges, fine or fees. It is possible that if these suggestions are factored into the relevant rules of the Court will go a long way in mitigating the endless wait for justice by litigants as well as resolving the issue of docket explosion in the courts in this country. (This article was originally published on Zee News. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

To reduce pending cases in courts, fines and fees are a good way to go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time Monday, stopping a lawyer who broke into song to wish him a long life to say he was "responding from the heart" but will speak from his mind in the evening.

CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes.&nbsp;

The chief justice in his inimitable style stopped a lawyer who started singing at the fag end of the proceedings.&nbsp;

"Tum jiyo hazaron saal..." the lawyer crooned, singing the opening lines of a Hindi film song from the late 1950s usually played on birthdays.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YJkdZIdsTWs" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

CJI Misra immediately stopped him and said, "Presently I am responding from my heart. I will respond from my mind in the evening."

Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice A M Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI.

In a strange turn of events, lawyer R P Luthra mentioned two alleged controversial tweets by senior lawyer Indira Jaising and advocate Prashant Bhushan against the outgoing CJI, criticising his recent judgements, including the verdict in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case.

He urged the court to take cognisance of the alleged controversial tweets. But the bench didn't respond after perusing the tweets.

CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations, and delivered several verdicts in the recent past.

These include upholding the Centre's flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery.

The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple.

Justice Misra was appointed additional judge of the Orissa High Court on January 17, 1996, before his transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He became a permanent judge on December 19, 1997.

He assumed charge of the office of chief justice of Patna High Court on December 23, 2009 and became chief justice of the Delhi High Court on May 24, 2010.&nbsp;

He was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011 and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time Monday, stopping a lawyer who broke into song to wish him a long life to say he was "responding from the heart" but will speak from his mind in the evening.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra held court, along with his successor Ranjan Gogoi, for the last time Monday, stopping a lawyer who broke into song to wish him a long life to say he was "responding from the heart" but will speak from his mind in the evening. CJI Misra, who presided over benches that delivered a series of key verdicts like the one on Aadhaar and homosexuality during the last 10 days, appeared to be emotional during the brief court proceedings that lasted about 25 minutes. The chief justice in his inimitable style stopped a lawyer who started singing at the fag end of the proceedings. "Tum jiyo hazaron saal..." the lawyer crooned, singing the opening lines of a Hindi film song from the late 1950s usually played on birthdays. × CJI Misra immediately stopped him and said, "Presently I am responding from my heart. I will respond from my mind in the evening." Justice Gogoi, who will take over the baton from Justice Misra on October 3, and Justice A M Khanwilkar were sitting on the bench, which said it will hear no urgent mentioning of matters Monday and added that the matter could be heard later on October 3 by the bench headed by the next CJI. In a strange turn of events, lawyer R P Luthra mentioned two alleged controversial tweets by senior lawyer Indira Jaising and advocate Prashant Bhushan against the outgoing CJI, criticising his recent judgements, including the verdict in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case. He urged the court to take cognisance of the alleged controversial tweets. But the bench didn't respond after perusing the tweets. CJI Misra has headed various benches of different combinations, and delivered several verdicts in the recent past. These include upholding the Centre's flagship scheme Aadhaar with certain riders and decriminalising consensual gay sex and adultery. The verdicts also include judgements in the Koregaon-Bhima violence case and allowing all women entry into the Sabarimala temple. Justice Misra was appointed additional judge of the Orissa High Court on January 17, 1996, before his transfer to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He became a permanent judge on December 19, 1997. He assumed charge of the office of chief justice of Patna High Court on December 23, 2009 and became chief justice of the Delhi High Court on May 24, 2010. He was elevated as a judge of the apex court on October 10, 2011 and became the Chief Justice on August 28, 2017.

Emotional CJI Dipak Misra holds court for last time

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

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

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

Congress withdraws petition to impeach CJI Dipak Misra in Supreme Court

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is all set to hear on Tuesday a petition moved by two Congress MPs challenging rejection of the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu.

The bench will be headed by Justice A K Sikri, number six in seniority. The other members are Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and A K Goel, who are next in the sequence of seniority.

The senior-most judges - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- who had held the controversial January 12 press conference in which they had virtually revolted against the CJI by raising a litany of allegations against him, have been kept out of the matter.

The setting up of the constitution bench was mentioned in Tuesday's list of business for the Supreme Court.

The development came hours after Justice Chelameswar, before whom the petition of the two Congress MPs was mentioned, expressed reservation in hearing the matter asking senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to "come back tomorrow".

The issue was raised at the start of the court's work in the morning when Sibal, one of the signatories to the impeachment notice in Rajya Sabha, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most after CJI Misra.

In the petition challenging the rejection of impeachment notice against the CJI by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the two MPs claimed that the reasons given were "wholly extraneous" and not legally tenable.

While Justice Chelameswar had initially asked him to mention the matter before the CJI, the bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, later asked Sibal and Bhushan to "come back tomorrow". Justice Chelameswar also said he was on the verge of retirement.

Making his submissions, Sibal said Chairman Venkaiah Naidu cannot summarily reject the notice bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members who had recently retired, on the ground that there was "no proved misbehaviour".

The bench asked Sibal and Bhushan to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, citing a constitution bench judgment on the powers of master of roster.

However, BJP leaders and advocates Meenakshi Lekhi and Aman Sinha told PTI there was no merit in the challenge to the rejection of the impeachment notice as the Rajya Sabha Chairman's order was well reasoned and completely dealt with each and every ground.

While Lekhi termed the filing of plea in the apex court as a "deceptive methodology" of the Congress party to remain in the news, Sinha said there was no legal ground to challenge the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

In the apex court, Justice Chelameswar, who was initially reluctant to order listing of the petition said "there was a five-judge constitution bench verdict on powers of master of roster. It would be appropriate if you mention the matter in court number-1 before the bench of Chief Justice".

However, after the submissions, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come tomorrow so they could take a call on the issue. "You come back tomorrow. We will see", the bench said.

The two leaders who have filed the petition are Rajya Sabha Congress MPs Partap Singh Bajwa from Punjab and Amee Harshadray Yajnik from Gujarat.

A five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had on November 10 last year categorically stated that the Chief Justice of India was the "master of the roster".

Advancing his arguments, Sibal said "I am aware of the procedure but it can't be mentioned anywhere else. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. I am just asking for urgent listing and not seeking any interim relief."

He said the CJI cannot order for listing and hence the senior-most judge of the court must pass some orders as it was a matter of constitutional importance.

Naidu had on April 23 rejected the impeachment notice given by seven opposition parties led by the Congress on five grounds of "misbehaviour". This was the first time that an impeachment notice was filed against a sitting CJI.

The petition of the two Congress MPs filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes in the top court alleged that the charges contained in the notice of the motion were extremely serious and called for a full fledged inquiry.

It also said the reasons given by Naidu while rejecting the impeachment notice were "not legally tenable" and deserved to be set aside for being "wholly extraneous" and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and the Inquiry Act.

It sought setting aside of the Chairman's order terming the charges contained in the notice of motion are "extremely serious" and merit "a full-fledged inquiry to test their veracity".&nbsp;

The SC bench hearing the petition will be headed by Justice AK Sikri. The plea will be heard Tuesday

A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court is all set to hear on Tuesday a petition moved by two Congress MPs challenging rejection of the impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu. The bench will be headed by Justice A K Sikri, number six in seniority. The other members are Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and A K Goel, who are next in the sequence of seniority. The senior-most judges - Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- who had held the controversial January 12 press conference in which they had virtually revolted against the CJI by raising a litany of allegations against him, have been kept out of the matter. The setting up of the constitution bench was mentioned in Tuesday's list of business for the Supreme Court. The development came hours after Justice Chelameswar, before whom the petition of the two Congress MPs was mentioned, expressed reservation in hearing the matter asking senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Prashant Bhushan to "come back tomorrow". The issue was raised at the start of the court's work in the morning when Sibal, one of the signatories to the impeachment notice in Rajya Sabha, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most after CJI Misra. In the petition challenging the rejection of impeachment notice against the CJI by the Rajya Sabha Chairman, the two MPs claimed that the reasons given were "wholly extraneous" and not legally tenable. While Justice Chelameswar had initially asked him to mention the matter before the CJI, the bench, also comprising Justice S K Kaul, later asked Sibal and Bhushan to "come back tomorrow". Justice Chelameswar also said he was on the verge of retirement. Making his submissions, Sibal said Chairman Venkaiah Naidu cannot summarily reject the notice bearing signatures of 64 MPs and seven former members who had recently retired, on the ground that there was "no proved misbehaviour". The bench asked Sibal and Bhushan to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing, citing a constitution bench judgment on the powers of master of roster. However, BJP leaders and advocates Meenakshi Lekhi and Aman Sinha told PTI there was no merit in the challenge to the rejection of the impeachment notice as the Rajya Sabha Chairman's order was well reasoned and completely dealt with each and every ground. While Lekhi termed the filing of plea in the apex court as a "deceptive methodology" of the Congress party to remain in the news, Sinha said there was no legal ground to challenge the decision of the Rajya Sabha Chairman. In the apex court, Justice Chelameswar, who was initially reluctant to order listing of the petition said "there was a five-judge constitution bench verdict on powers of master of roster. It would be appropriate if you mention the matter in court number-1 before the bench of Chief Justice". However, after the submissions, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Kaul went into a huddle and asked Sibal and Bhushan to come tomorrow so they could take a call on the issue. "You come back tomorrow. We will see", the bench said. The two leaders who have filed the petition are Rajya Sabha Congress MPs Partap Singh Bajwa from Punjab and Amee Harshadray Yajnik from Gujarat. A five-judge constitution bench of the apex court had on November 10 last year categorically stated that the Chief Justice of India was the "master of the roster". Advancing his arguments, Sibal said "I am aware of the procedure but it can't be mentioned anywhere else. A person cannot be a judge in his own cause. I am just asking for urgent listing and not seeking any interim relief." He said the CJI cannot order for listing and hence the senior-most judge of the court must pass some orders as it was a matter of constitutional importance. Naidu had on April 23 rejected the impeachment notice given by seven opposition parties led by the Congress on five grounds of "misbehaviour". This was the first time that an impeachment notice was filed against a sitting CJI. The petition of the two Congress MPs filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes in the top court alleged that the charges contained in the notice of the motion were extremely serious and called for a full fledged inquiry. It also said the reasons given by Naidu while rejecting the impeachment notice were "not legally tenable" and deserved to be set aside for being "wholly extraneous" and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and the Inquiry Act. It sought setting aside of the Chairman's order terming the charges contained in the notice of motion are "extremely serious" and merit "a full-fledged inquiry to test their veracity".

Supreme Court to hear petition challenging rejection of impeachment notice against CJI Misra

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju says he was on the verge of being impeached when he was in the Allahabad High Court in 1992 after he ordered the reinstatement of a teacher whose appointment was cancelled by school authorities in Uttar Pradesh.

He also feels that the process of appointing the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India should be done away with as this “convention has proved to be defective”.

Katju, who also served as the Chief Justice of the Delhi and the Madras High Court, and as acting Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, has come out with a book “Whither Indian Judiciary” in which he takes an analytical inside view of the Indian judiciary.

On the appointment of the CJI, he writes, “The senior-most judge may be a man of integrity but maybe the mediocre person. He should be superseded and a judge next in seniority or one even lower down in seniority, if outstanding (as borne out from his judgments), should be made Chief Justice of India.”

He traces the evolution of law and proceeds to analyse matters of critical importance like the appointment of judges, contempt of court, delays in justice and the challenges facing the Indian judiciary.

Katju, who was also a former chairman of the Press Council of India, says the scenario of the country’s legal system is not encouraging.

“It will take unanimous and cumulative efforts by all to achieve required progress in judicial reforms. We need radical reforms and a strong will and commitment to truly make a difference. But I doubt this will happen. Whither Indian judiciary? No one can say, but the scenario is not encouraging,” he rues.

On the near-impeachment episode, he recalls, “I was appointed a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court in November 1991, and was almost sacked a few months thereafter.”

The trigger was the case related to Naresh Chand, who was appointed a biology teacher on ad hoc basis by the management of an obscure high school in Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh.

But the District Inspector of Schools refused to approve the appointment on the ground that Chand was an OBC while the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate.

Consequently his appointment was cancelled by the management of the school and his service was terminated.

“Chand challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, and the case came before me,” Katju says, adding he quashed the order cancelling the appointment and directed his reinstatement.

“This judgment, delivered in 1992, created a furore all over India. While huge rallies, particularly of students, were held in support of my judgment in many parts of India, there were counter rallies elsewhere,” he says.

Katju claims he started receiving threats by anonymous letters and on telephone and a large contingent of policemen had to be placed around the premises of the Allahabad High Court.

“From the newspapers I learnt that the members of Parliament belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes held a meeting in Delhi and decided to bring a bill in Parliament for my impeachment,” he writes in the book, published by Bloomsbury.

“I had just been appointed a high court judge, and here I was, on the verge of being sacked! For a long time I could not go for walks, and except for going to the high court had to remain confined to my house. Fortunately, the storm blew over and I survived,” he adds.

Markandey Katju, who was also a former chairman of the Press Council of India, says the scenario of the country's legal system is not encouraging.

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju says he was on the verge of being impeached when he was in the Allahabad High Court in 1992 after he ordered the reinstatement of a teacher whose appointment was cancelled by school authorities in Uttar Pradesh. He also feels that the process of appointing the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice of India should be done away with as this “convention has proved to be defective”. Katju, who also served as the Chief Justice of the Delhi and the Madras High Court, and as acting Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, has come out with a book “Whither Indian Judiciary” in which he takes an analytical inside view of the Indian judiciary. On the appointment of the CJI, he writes, “The senior-most judge may be a man of integrity but maybe the mediocre person. He should be superseded and a judge next in seniority or one even lower down in seniority, if outstanding (as borne out from his judgments), should be made Chief Justice of India.” He traces the evolution of law and proceeds to analyse matters of critical importance like the appointment of judges, contempt of court, delays in justice and the challenges facing the Indian judiciary. Katju, who was also a former chairman of the Press Council of India, says the scenario of the country’s legal system is not encouraging. “It will take unanimous and cumulative efforts by all to achieve required progress in judicial reforms. We need radical reforms and a strong will and commitment to truly make a difference. But I doubt this will happen. Whither Indian judiciary? No one can say, but the scenario is not encouraging,” he rues. On the near-impeachment episode, he recalls, “I was appointed a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court in November 1991, and was almost sacked a few months thereafter.” The trigger was the case related to Naresh Chand, who was appointed a biology teacher on ad hoc basis by the management of an obscure high school in Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh. But the District Inspector of Schools refused to approve the appointment on the ground that Chand was an OBC while the post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate. Consequently his appointment was cancelled by the management of the school and his service was terminated. “Chand challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, and the case came before me,” Katju says, adding he quashed the order cancelling the appointment and directed his reinstatement. “This judgment, delivered in 1992, created a furore all over India. While huge rallies, particularly of students, were held in support of my judgment in many parts of India, there were counter rallies elsewhere,” he says. Katju claims he started receiving threats by anonymous letters and on telephone and a large contingent of policemen had to be placed around the premises of the Allahabad High Court. “From the newspapers I learnt that the members of Parliament belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes held a meeting in Delhi and decided to bring a bill in Parliament for my impeachment,” he writes in the book, published by Bloomsbury. “I had just been appointed a high court judge, and here I was, on the verge of being sacked! For a long time I could not go for walks, and except for going to the high court had to remain confined to my house. Fortunately, the storm blew over and I survived,” he adds.

I was on verge of being impeached: Markandey Katju

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

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

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

Opinion: Politicising the judiciary - a disturbing trend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress leader and former Union Minister Ashwani Kumar opposed his party's decision of moving an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and said that the move could have been avoided.

He added that if he would have been a Member of Parliament and had been given the paper to sign, he would not have done it.

Kumar's expressed his objection to the impeachment motion while refusing to pass any comment on the circumstances that led to it, namely the dismissal of the PIL seeking a special investigation into the death of judge of Judge BH Loya.

"I would not like to get into the merits of the controversy, I am on a larger principle and the larger principle is that impeachment is the extreme remedy and that to against the chief justice, which is an unprecedented move," Kumar said.

On Friday, the opposition parties led by Congress moved the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha seeking the removal of CJI Misra under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India. The motion was signed by 64 sitting members of the House.

As per Article 124 (4), "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity."

(With inputs from Agencies)

There are other senior Congressmen, like former PM Manmohan Singh, P Chidambaram and Salman Khurshid who have not signed the petition.

Congress leader and former Union Minister Ashwani Kumar opposed his party's decision of moving an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and said that the move could have been avoided. He added that if he would have been a Member of Parliament and had been given the paper to sign, he would not have done it. Kumar's expressed his objection to the impeachment motion while refusing to pass any comment on the circumstances that led to it, namely the dismissal of the PIL seeking a special investigation into the death of judge of Judge BH Loya. "I would not like to get into the merits of the controversy, I am on a larger principle and the larger principle is that impeachment is the extreme remedy and that to against the chief justice, which is an unprecedented move," Kumar said. On Friday, the opposition parties led by Congress moved the impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha seeking the removal of CJI Misra under Article 217 read with article 124 (4) of the Constitution of India. The motion was signed by 64 sitting members of the House. As per Article 124 (4), "A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity." (With inputs from Agencies)

Congress leader Ashwani Kumar opposes his own party for moving impeachment motion against CJI

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

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system.

Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court.

The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'.

"The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said.

He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily.

Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?"

"The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order."

"Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said.

His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country.

On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true".

"I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said.

Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye.

"None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said.

In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government".

"I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said.

Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure.

When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media.

"Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements.

"I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said.

Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government?

"I am not answering this question," he replied.

He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired.

When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".&nbsp

Gogoi was one of the four Supreme Court judges who held the January 12 press conference. The conference was seen as being an indictment of CJI Dipak Misra

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system. Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court. The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'. "The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said. He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily. Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?" "The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order." "Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said. His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country. On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true". "I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said. Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye. "None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said. In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government". "I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said. Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure. When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media. "Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements. "I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said. Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government? "I am not answering this question," he replied. He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired. When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".

If Ranjan Gogoi not made next CJI, will prove what we said was true: 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

A draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against Chief Jusatice of India Dipak Misra has been&nbsp;circulated to parties by the Congress, sources said on Monday. 
&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<center>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-cards="hidden" data-lang="en">
A draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra has been circulated to parties by Congress: Sources <a href="https://t.co/QqJeMkXk1T">pic.twitter.com/QqJeMkXk1T</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/978623280159522816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 27, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></center>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

NCP leader DP Tripathi said a lot of Opposition parties had signed a draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India.

"A lot of opposition parties have signed a draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra. Many parties like NCP, Left parties and I think TMC and Congress also have signed it," DP Tripathi said.

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee met senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan earlier in the day to discuss a possible impeachment motion against the CJI, ANI reported. 
 
The move comes more than two months after four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court went public&nbsp;with their allegations against the Supreme Court chief justice.

In January, in an unprecedented development, the top court's four next highest-ranking judges, Justices&nbsp;Kurian Joseph, Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan Lokur, had criticised the distribution of cases by&nbsp;the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They also said all top judges&nbsp;should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts.

The judges had 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,&nbsp;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&nbsp;issue&nbsp;of assignment of a case".&nbsp;

The justices released a letter they had written to Misra in which they mentioned cases of "far-reaching&nbsp;consequences for the nation and the institution" that were selectively assigned by the chief justice without&nbsp;rational "basis for such assignment".

The move comes more than two months after four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court went public with their allegations against the Supreme Court chief justice

A draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against Chief Jusatice of India Dipak Misra has been circulated to parties by the Congress, sources said on Monday. A draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra has been circulated to parties by Congress: Sources pic.twitter.com/QqJeMkXk1T — ANI (@ANI) March 27, 2018 × NCP leader DP Tripathi said a lot of Opposition parties had signed a draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against the Chief Justice of India. "A lot of opposition parties have signed a draft proposal for moving an impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra. Many parties like NCP, Left parties and I think TMC and Congress also have signed it," DP Tripathi said. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee met senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan earlier in the day to discuss a possible impeachment motion against the CJI, ANI reported. The move comes more than two months after four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court went public with their allegations against the Supreme Court chief justice. In January, 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 also 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 had 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". 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".

Congress circulates draft proposal for impeachment motion against CJI: Report

The Supreme Court has allowed the UIDAI CEO to make it a power point presentation on the Aadhaar programme.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bVzi2dAIaF8" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The presentation by the UIDAI CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, will be made today at 2.30 pm today. It is meant to allay people&#39;s fears about the scheme.&nbsp;

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/centre-asks-to-give-supreme-court-power-point-presentation-on-aadhaar-36606" target="_blank">request</a> had been made yesterday, with the Chief Justice of India replying to the Government of India&#39;s counsel that he would get back to him after discussing the idea with the other judges on the bench listening to the myriad petitions against the programme.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has also asked the petitioners opposed to the Aadhaar programme to prepare a questionnaire after the power point presentation.&nbsp;

The Aadhaar programme aims to assign every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says this will streamline its delivery systems, getting aid more efficiently to the people who need it the most.&nbsp;

In reality however&nbsp;there have been reports of people without Aadhaar numbers starving to death because government ration shops have refused to serve them.&nbsp;

A number of petitions were filed against the programme. The petitions were later clubbed together by the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-compulsory-linking-of-aadhaar-with-bank-accounts-mobiles-extended-indefinitely-35673" target="_blank">Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely, says Supreme Court</a>

The presentation, meant to allay people's fears about the Aadhaar programme, will be made at 2.30 pm today

The Supreme Court has allowed the UIDAI CEO to make it a power point presentation on the Aadhaar programme. × The presentation by the UIDAI CEO, Dr Ajay Bhushan Pandey, will be made today at 2.30 pm today. It is meant to allay people's fears about the scheme. The request had been made yesterday, with the Chief Justice of India replying to the Government of India's counsel that he would get back to him after discussing the idea with the other judges on the bench listening to the myriad petitions against the programme. The Supreme Court has also asked the petitioners opposed to the Aadhaar programme to prepare a questionnaire after the power point presentation. The Aadhaar programme aims to assign every single Indian citizen a unique identification number. The government says this will streamline its delivery systems, getting aid more efficiently to the people who need it the most. In reality however there have been reports of people without Aadhaar numbers starving to death because government ration shops have refused to serve them. A number of petitions were filed against the programme. The petitions were later clubbed together by the Supreme Court. Also read: Compulsory linking of Aadhaar with bank accounts, mobiles extended indefinitely, says Supreme Court

Supreme Court allows UIDAI CEO to make it power point presentation on Aadhaar

CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury noted on Tuesday that the opposition is considering pressing for the impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

Yechury called judicial independence and its integrity non-negotiable.

He also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion.&nbsp;

In a fresh twist to the conflict in the Supreme Court -- where four senior Supreme Court judges accused CJI Dipak Misra of judicial impropriety -- CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said that the opposition parties have started discussing ways to mitigate the ongoing judicial crisis.

&quot;Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so need to intervene and its time to play the role of an executive,&quot; Yechury noted.&nbsp;

He also shared that CPM is in the process of discussing the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI with other parties -- such as NCP, RJD SP -- during the Budget session.&nbsp;

He urged the judges to sort their &quot;grudges&quot; on their own.&nbsp;

Yechury called the ongoing Supreme Court tussle a &quot;very dangerous situation&quot; and called out to the Modi government to mediate the matter with the assistance of the parliament and the legislative authorities.&nbsp;

&quot;We are trying that in next 2-3 days we take some decision and move forward,&quot; he noted.&nbsp;

The passing of the impeachment motion will require a majority of two-thirds support -- a task that looks difficult to achieve as the BJP has cornered itself from participating in the move.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Yechury also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion

CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury noted on Tuesday that the opposition is considering pressing for the impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra. Yechury called judicial independence and its integrity non-negotiable. He also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion. In a fresh twist to the conflict in the Supreme Court -- where four senior Supreme Court judges accused CJI Dipak Misra of judicial impropriety -- CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said that the opposition parties have started discussing ways to mitigate the ongoing judicial crisis. "Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so need to intervene and its time to play the role of an executive," Yechury noted. He also shared that CPM is in the process of discussing the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI with other parties -- such as NCP, RJD SP -- during the Budget session. He urged the judges to sort their "grudges" on their own. Yechury called the ongoing Supreme Court tussle a "very dangerous situation" and called out to the Modi government to mediate the matter with the assistance of the parliament and the legislative authorities. "We are trying that in next 2-3 days we take some decision and move forward," he noted. The passing of the impeachment motion will require a majority of two-thirds support -- a task that looks difficult to achieve as the BJP has cornered itself from participating in the move. (With inputs from agencies)

Opposition parties may call for CJI's impeachment: Sitaram Yechury

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

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