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

The Supreme court stayed a High Court order initiating a contempt and departmental enquiry lower court&#39;s Additional District Judge (ADJ) Dr Kamini Lau on Tuesday.&nbsp;

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud told Lau to file an &quot;unconditional apology&quot;&nbsp;in the Delhi High Court, saying it &ldquo;wanted to protect&rdquo; her for future as well.&nbsp;

&ldquo;I had no intention whatsoever to undermine the majesty of law and the words used were unintentional,&rdquo; she said, adding that she would file the affidavit tendering unconditional apology in the High Court as asked by the top court.

&ldquo;It is in your interest, we are asking you to file this affidavit in the High Court. We are going to protect your in interest in this regard,&rdquo; the bench said.

A division bench of the Delhi High Court, on December 22 last year, had directed of contempt and enquiry proceedings against Lau after noticing alleged objectionable words used in four applications seeking expunction of adverse remarks passed by a single judge bench of the High Court in as many civil appeals.

Lau, in her appeal, mentioned that the higher courts &ldquo;should judge the judgements and not the judge&rdquo;.

At the outset, the CJI said he wanted to protect the judge and even asked senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Lau, not to argue.

A single bench of High Court has made some comments about judgements passed by Lau as Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari in four civil cases.&nbsp;

(With PTI inputs)

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud told Dr Kamini Lau to file an unconditional apology in the Delhi High Court, saying it 'wanted to protect' her for future as well

The Supreme court stayed a High Court order initiating a contempt and departmental enquiry lower court's Additional District Judge (ADJ) Dr Kamini Lau on Tuesday. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice D Y Chandrachud told Lau to file an "unconditional apology" in the Delhi High Court, saying it “wanted to protect” her for future as well. “I had no intention whatsoever to undermine the majesty of law and the words used were unintentional,” she said, adding that she would file the affidavit tendering unconditional apology in the High Court as asked by the top court. “It is in your interest, we are asking you to file this affidavit in the High Court. We are going to protect your in interest in this regard,” the bench said. A division bench of the Delhi High Court, on December 22 last year, had directed of contempt and enquiry proceedings against Lau after noticing alleged objectionable words used in four applications seeking expunction of adverse remarks passed by a single judge bench of the High Court in as many civil appeals. Lau, in her appeal, mentioned that the higher courts “should judge the judgements and not the judge”. At the outset, the CJI said he wanted to protect the judge and even asked senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Lau, not to argue. A single bench of High Court has made some comments about judgements passed by Lau as Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari in four civil cases. (With PTI inputs)

Supreme Court stays contempt proceedings against woman ADJ judge

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-internal-matter-will-be-resolved-soon-says-bar-councilof-india-29484">Supreme Court crisis: &#39;Internal matter, will be resolved soon,&#39; says Bar Council of India</a>

The Bar Council made the statement after meeting with Justice Chelameswar, one of the four judges to have called an unprecedented press conference on Friday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/watch-live-updates-israeli-pm-bejamin-netanyahu-lands-in-india-modi-breaks-protocol-to-receive-him-at-airport-29470">Live Updates:&nbsp;Israeli PM, PM Modi laud role of Indian soldiers in liberating Haifa</a>

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in New Delhi this afternoon, six months after PM Modi&#39;s first-ever visit to Israel.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-4-retired-judges-write-open-letter-to-cji-29488">Supreme Court crisis: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI</a>

The four retired judges, including one from the Supreme Court, said they agree with the issues raised by the Supreme Court judges.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-a-global-power-says-israeli-pm-benjamin-netanyahu-29478">India a global power, says Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu</a>

The statement was made before Netanyahu, who landed in New Delhi on Sunday, left Israel for India.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-releases-video-on-pm-modis-hugplomacy-29487">Congress releases video on PM Modi&#39;s &#39;</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-releases-video-on-pm-modis-hugplomacy-29487">hugplomacy</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/congress-releases-video-on-pm-modis-hugplomacy-29487">&#39;</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke protocol today to receive his Israeli counterpart at the airport. PM Netanyahu was received with a warm hug.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Supreme Court crisis: 'Internal matter, will be resolved soon,' says Bar Council of India The Bar Council made the statement after meeting with Justice Chelameswar, one of the four judges to have called an unprecedented press conference on Friday. Live Updates: Israeli PM, PM Modi laud role of Indian soldiers in liberating Haifa Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in New Delhi this afternoon, six months after PM Modi's first-ever visit to Israel. Supreme Court crisis: 4 retired judges write open letter to CJI The four retired judges, including one from the Supreme Court, said they agree with the issues raised by the Supreme Court judges. India a global power, says Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu The statement was made before Netanyahu, who landed in New Delhi on Sunday, left Israel for India. Congress releases video on PM Modi's 'hugplomacy' Prime Minister Narendra Modi broke protocol today to receive his Israeli counterpart at the airport. PM Netanyahu was received with a warm hug.

WION Evening News brief, January 14, 2018

India&#39;s Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI)&nbsp;of India <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">Dipak Misra</a> after four judges addressed the media for the first time.

Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316">addressed the media</a> for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day.&nbsp;

At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was &quot;not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable&quot; things have taken place.

The judges said they had written a letter to CJI Dipak Misra some time back, raising important issues. &quot;But all of them failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said.

&quot;We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice,&quot; Justice Chelameswar said.

Unless this institution is preserved, &quot;democracy will not survive in this country,&quot; the four judges said.

Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, &quot;let the nation decide.&quot;

&quot;A couple of months back, four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI and we wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the thing was done, but in a way, that it raises doubt on the integrity of the institution,&quot; Justice Chelameswar had said.

Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/after-supreme-court-judges-speak-out-pm-modi-meets-law-minister-ravi-shankar-prasad-29324">looking into the matter</a> and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.

India's Attorney General K K Venugopal met the Chief Justice (CJI) of India Dipak Misra after four judges addressed the media for the first time. Four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media for the first time on differences with the CJI earlier in the day. At the press conference, the four judges said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. The judges said they had written a letter to CJI Dipak Misra some time back, raising important issues. "But all of them failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately, our efforts failed," Justice Chelameswar said. "We were left with no choice but to address the media, we have failed to convince the Chief Justice," Justice Chelameswar said. Unless this institution is preserved, "democracy will not survive in this country," the four judges said. Asked whether they wanted the Chief Justice to be impeached, Justice Chelameswar said, "let the nation decide." "A couple of months back, four of us gave a signed letter to the CJI and we wanted a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the thing was done, but in a way, that it raises doubt on the integrity of the institution," Justice Chelameswar had said. Sources said Prime Minister Narendra Modi was looking into the matter and had spoken to Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad.

Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment: Supreme Court judges in press conference

The Constitution helps, judicial decisions also help but, basically and truly, it is the vigorous public opinion that safeguards democracy and enables the country to adhere to the democratic way of life. If the public conscience is shrunken, then a stage is set for letting loose forces which may pose a danger to a democracy. This is precisely what happened today when in an unprecedented and extraordinary move, four senior-most judges of the apex court came out of the court on a working day and met the people of the country through media.

Serious questions of far-reaching consequence were raised which seriously doubted the credibility of the institution, which claims it to be the conscience keeper of people of India. &nbsp;

One of the issues raised by four senior-most judges was the functioning of the Collegium. It has been condemned for not being transparent and objective, the reasons for which it was evolved. It failed to institutionalise the process and the parameters of appointment, elevation and transfer of judges.

It has been about two years since the five-judge Constitution Bench, after striking down the government&rsquo;s NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) law, tasked the Centre (December 2015) to draft a fresh Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) with the objective of making judicial appointments transparent. But the Chief Justice of India apparently did not keep his senior colleagues in a loop while referring the matter of MoP to a different bench namely R P Luthara v. Union of India on 27th Oct. 2017.&nbsp;

The second contentious issue is the formation of benches and allocation of cases to it. How is it decided as to which judge will sit on which bench of the Supreme Court? The simple answer is that the public does not know.

The reason is the Supreme Court&rsquo;s general attitude against the application of the Right to Information Act, to it, despite its judgments declaring how vital the public&rsquo;s right to know is for a democracy. The public has a right to know how its public institutions and its public functionaries are functioning. This current chaos in the Supreme Court revolves around the disconcerting trends arising out of bench formation in the apex court.&nbsp;

Though the matter has been raised many times in the past, it received serious attention when &lsquo;Campaign for Judicial Accountability&rsquo; filed a petition, seeking a special investigation team under the supervision of a former CJI to thoroughly probe the case relating to granting recognition to medical colleges since the matter might involve sitting and former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The plea sought recusal of the CJI, contending the medical admission cases were being heard by his bench in the apex court and that his role might also need to be examined.&nbsp;

However, nullifying the order passed by Justice Chelameswar, the larger bench headed by the Chief Justice held that any such order shall be &quot;ineffective&quot; and will not be binding since only the CJI can decide where and how a case is to be listed for hearing. &nbsp; &nbsp;

Another sensitive issue was concerning an independent probe into the death of CBI&nbsp;Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, who presided over the&nbsp;Sohrabuddin Sheikh&nbsp;staged shooting case. &nbsp;Bharatiya Janata President&nbsp;Amit Shah&nbsp;was one of the accused (but later discharged), besides other top&nbsp;Gujarat&nbsp;police officers among the accused. Chief Justice allegedly picked up a handmaid bench to hear this matter ignoring the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.&nbsp;

It would now be unavoidable for the Chief Justice of India to disentangle the crisis by safeguarding genuinely contested issues of transparency, accountability and credibility of the institution otherwise the conscience of the people is bound to be dismayed.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

It would now be unavoidable for the Chief Justice of India to disentangle the crisis by safeguarding genuinely contested issues of transparency, accountability and credibility of the institution otherwise the conscience of the people is bound to be dismayed.

The Constitution helps, judicial decisions also help but, basically and truly, it is the vigorous public opinion that safeguards democracy and enables the country to adhere to the democratic way of life. If the public conscience is shrunken, then a stage is set for letting loose forces which may pose a danger to a democracy. This is precisely what happened today when in an unprecedented and extraordinary move, four senior-most judges of the apex court came out of the court on a working day and met the people of the country through media. Serious questions of far-reaching consequence were raised which seriously doubted the credibility of the institution, which claims it to be the conscience keeper of people of India. One of the issues raised by four senior-most judges was the functioning of the Collegium. It has been condemned for not being transparent and objective, the reasons for which it was evolved. It failed to institutionalise the process and the parameters of appointment, elevation and transfer of judges. It has been about two years since the five-judge Constitution Bench, after striking down the government’s NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) law, tasked the Centre (December 2015) to draft a fresh Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) with the objective of making judicial appointments transparent. But the Chief Justice of India apparently did not keep his senior colleagues in a loop while referring the matter of MoP to a different bench namely R P Luthara v. Union of India on 27th Oct. 2017. The second contentious issue is the formation of benches and allocation of cases to it. How is it decided as to which judge will sit on which bench of the Supreme Court? The simple answer is that the public does not know. The reason is the Supreme Court’s general attitude against the application of the Right to Information Act, to it, despite its judgments declaring how vital the public’s right to know is for a democracy. The public has a right to know how its public institutions and its public functionaries are functioning. This current chaos in the Supreme Court revolves around the disconcerting trends arising out of bench formation in the apex court. Though the matter has been raised many times in the past, it received serious attention when ‘Campaign for Judicial Accountability’ filed a petition, seeking a special investigation team under the supervision of a former CJI to thoroughly probe the case relating to granting recognition to medical colleges since the matter might involve sitting and former judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. The plea sought recusal of the CJI, contending the medical admission cases were being heard by his bench in the apex court and that his role might also need to be examined. However, nullifying the order passed by Justice Chelameswar, the larger bench headed by the Chief Justice held that any such order shall be "ineffective" and will not be binding since only the CJI can decide where and how a case is to be listed for hearing. Another sensitive issue was concerning an independent probe into the death of CBI Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya, who presided over the Sohrabuddin Sheikh staged shooting case. Bharatiya Janata President Amit Shah was one of the accused (but later discharged), besides other top Gujarat police officers among the accused. Chief Justice allegedly picked up a handmaid bench to hear this matter ignoring the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. It would now be unavoidable for the Chief Justice of India to disentangle the crisis by safeguarding genuinely contested issues of transparency, accountability and credibility of the institution otherwise the conscience of the people is bound to be dismayed. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: How bad is the situation in India's Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

The issues raised by the four senior Supreme Court judges in the unprecedented press conference on Friday are an &quot;internal&quot; matter of the judiciary, highly placed sources said, indicating that the government is unlikely to interfere.

The government has no say in it and does not wish to interfere, the sources said.

It is an internal matter of the judiciary, the sources in the government said.

However, they also added that the apex court should settle the issue at the earliest as the faith of the people in the judiciary is at stake.

In an unprecedented move, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court today called a press conference and said the situation in the top court was &quot;not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable&quot; things have taken place.

The second senior judge after the Chief Justice of India, Justice J Chelameswar, said, &quot;... Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months&quot;.

The other judges who were present at the press conference were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph.

Official sources in the law ministry said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has not met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this regard so far.

The government has no say in it and does not wish to interfere, the sources said.

The issues raised by the four senior Supreme Court judges in the unprecedented press conference on Friday are an "internal" matter of the judiciary, highly placed sources said, indicating that the government is unlikely to interfere. The government has no say in it and does not wish to interfere, the sources said. It is an internal matter of the judiciary, the sources in the government said. However, they also added that the apex court should settle the issue at the earliest as the faith of the people in the judiciary is at stake. In an unprecedented move, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court today called a press conference and said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place. The second senior judge after the Chief Justice of India, Justice J Chelameswar, said, "... Sometimes administration of the Supreme Court is not in order and many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months". The other judges who were present at the press conference were Justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, and Kurian Joseph. Official sources in the law ministry said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has not met Prime Minister Narendra Modi in this regard so far.

Issues raised by SC judges 'internal matter of judiciary': Sources

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

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

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

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

CPI on Friday clarified that D Raja met&nbsp;Justice J Chelameswar in his personal capacity and the meeting has nothing to do with the party.&nbsp;

The senior-most judge in the Supreme Court&nbsp;Justice J Chelameswar met with the CPI leader D Raja after the unprecedented press conference in Delhi.

&quot;Raja went (to Justice Chelameswar&#39;s residence) in his personal capacity, not as a representative of the party,&quot; CPI general secretary S Sudhakar Reddy told PTI.

Dismissing the speculations that CPI was trying to intervene in the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court judges he called it a &quot;misunderstanding.&nbsp;

&quot;It is a misunderstanding that the CPI wants to meddle in this controversy. The judiciary itself has to solve the problem. It is a very important issue. The advice of former CJIs and prominent jurists should also be taken into account and the confidence and credibility of the Supreme Court should be re-established,&quot; Reddy said.&nbsp;

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy reacted to the meeting by saying that D Raja is not just a politician but a member of Parliament as well.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
So what? This is not a big thing, D Raja is not just a politician but a member of Parliament as well: Subramanian Swamy,BJP on CPI&#39;s D Raja meeting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeChelameswar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeChelameswar</a> <a href="https://t.co/dyVDoE8LFP">pic.twitter.com/dyVDoE8LFP</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/951825590037790722?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

In an unprecedented move, four senior judges of the Supreme Court today held an open press conference where they said that the administration of the apex court is &quot;sometimes not in order&quot; and many &quot;less than desirable things&quot; have taken place.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

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

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

D Raja met Justice Chelameswar in his personal capacity: CPI

It was an ordinary day made unprecedented by 4 extraordinary Supreme Court judges who made there point across to the nation through a nimble press conference. The message was loud and clear that certain issues require immediate attention as the system itself and those in charge have failed to resolve them.&nbsp;

What the press conference did was to make the issues, which have been a taboo and spoken in a hushed tone, now are part of public discourse. The issue of corruption and arbitrariness within the Indian judiciary is not new. The judges have ensured that the topic of judicial reform and corruption remains part of public knowledge for a long time.

For the first time, the top judiciary will be evaluated for the reforms it has initiated from within rather than pushed from outside. The press conference also breaks the hubris and untouchability of the institution which in a democracy was never the right precedent.

&nbsp;It is not to say that the Apex Court has not done a great job but it also shied away from issues plaguing them, be it recruitment of judges to posting issues to a bench of one&rsquo;s own choice. Rather than persecute the messengers, it is a great opportunity for the judiciary to renew itself by looking into issues which is being publically debated in the country.&nbsp;

Today because of a lack of political decision-making by the elected members, the society&#39;s need for a fair judiciary is even more. From pollution to corruption, matters instead of getting resolved at political level have gone to the courts. The court must restore confidence by addressing itself. It cannot continue as an untouchable institution as that way it will end up losing people&rsquo;s trust. In a democracy, the trust of the people is the most sacred thing. It is even more sacred than the law itself as it is about faith.

&nbsp;Moreover, the people of the country would see as to as to how the government, the judiciary and the Opposition will behave on this issue. It will be difficult for the government to stay away from this issue for a long time. After a long time, the debate has also moved from the judiciary versus executive to the reforms in the judiciary, which is opposed to any interference from the political executive

For good or bad, with or without immediate change, things will not remain same for the Indian judiciary. The 4 judges have ensured that there will be a new normal when it comes to the Apex Court. If this press conference cannot move the judiciary to take action than nothing would it. The Chief Justice of India should be like Ceaser&rsquo;s wife and must walk the talk to ensure that correction takes place from within rather than outside as public outcry can swing the pendulum to another end. That for certain will not be healthy for democracy.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

If this press conference cannot move the judiciary to take action than nothing would it.

It was an ordinary day made unprecedented by 4 extraordinary Supreme Court judges who made there point across to the nation through a nimble press conference. The message was loud and clear that certain issues require immediate attention as the system itself and those in charge have failed to resolve them. What the press conference did was to make the issues, which have been a taboo and spoken in a hushed tone, now are part of public discourse. The issue of corruption and arbitrariness within the Indian judiciary is not new. The judges have ensured that the topic of judicial reform and corruption remains part of public knowledge for a long time. For the first time, the top judiciary will be evaluated for the reforms it has initiated from within rather than pushed from outside. The press conference also breaks the hubris and untouchability of the institution which in a democracy was never the right precedent. It is not to say that the Apex Court has not done a great job but it also shied away from issues plaguing them, be it recruitment of judges to posting issues to a bench of one’s own choice. Rather than persecute the messengers, it is a great opportunity for the judiciary to renew itself by looking into issues which is being publically debated in the country. Today because of a lack of political decision-making by the elected members, the society's need for a fair judiciary is even more. From pollution to corruption, matters instead of getting resolved at political level have gone to the courts. The court must restore confidence by addressing itself. It cannot continue as an untouchable institution as that way it will end up losing people’s trust. In a democracy, the trust of the people is the most sacred thing. It is even more sacred than the law itself as it is about faith. Moreover, the people of the country would see as to as to how the government, the judiciary and the Opposition will behave on this issue. It will be difficult for the government to stay away from this issue for a long time. After a long time, the debate has also moved from the judiciary versus executive to the reforms in the judiciary, which is opposed to any interference from the political executive For good or bad, with or without immediate change, things will not remain same for the Indian judiciary. The 4 judges have ensured that there will be a new normal when it comes to the Apex Court. If this press conference cannot move the judiciary to take action than nothing would it. The Chief Justice of India should be like Ceaser’s wife and must walk the talk to ensure that correction takes place from within rather than outside as public outcry can swing the pendulum to another end. That for certain will not be healthy for democracy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Can 4 Supreme Court judges, who had bell the cat, change judiciary?

Petitioner and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had sought an SIT Investigation into the medical college bribery scam, termed the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra, overriding J Chelameshwar`s order as a `black day` in the history of the Supreme Court.&quot;I feel that the behaviour of the CJI and the bench was not proper. We haven`t yet seen the order of the court. We`ll first see and then take the call on our future course of action,&quot; Bhushan told ANI.&quot;But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme Court,&quot; he added.

The above-mentioned matter pertains to a medical college bribery scam against IM Quddusi (retired Orissa High Court judge) who was arrested among others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the PIL, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing&nbsp;on Monday.

However, the case took an interesting turn Friday, when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Dipak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void.

Bhushan, earlier in the day, tweeted that CJI Dipak Misra presided over a &quot;hand-picked bench to override yesterday`s order&quot; by another top court bench.Speaking to ANI, Bhushan went on to explain the ordeal of the day`s proceedings.

&quot;It was one of the most unfortunate days for the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the credibility of the court has been greatly undermined and that too effectively by the CJI himself. The petition was seeking an independent SIT investigation into a CBI FIR effectively registered against the judges of SC, including the CJI, particularly the CJI. We were asking for an independent SIT investigation and that it should not be left with the CBI, which is a caged parrot under the Central Government,&quot; Bhushan said.

&quot;A similar matter was heard the previous day in which it was observed that it is a very important case and can have serious ramifications and therefore, it should be heard by five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court&nbsp;on Monday. Today when our matter came to a different bench, the two judges first apparently said that it should be connected with the earlier case but then at&nbsp;2:45 pm, I received a call from the registry that the CJI has constituted a seven-judge bench,&quot; he added.

Bhushan further said that thereafter, a five bench started the proceedings, but instead of hearing the matter on merits, it started asking all kinds of random lawyers present there about the propriety of court no. 2 hearing this matter the previous day.

&quot;When I said that the CJI should not be hearing this matter because he has a conflict of interest as this FIR is effectively seeking an investigation into his role also, he ignored my point and once again started listening to random lawyers,&quot; he said, adding, &quot;He did not allow me to say anything on the merits of the case.

&quot;Bhushan added that after trying for four-five times, he left the court.&quot;Thereafter, apparently he passed an order saying that he is the `master of roles`, and that he would only assign the benches,&quot; he concluded.Bhushan had earlier tweeted, &quot;Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in the case seeking SIT Investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CJI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday`s order referring this case to top 5 judges.This despite having a direct conflict of interest.&quot;

&quot;The court proceedings were extraordinary in that the CJI was asking all kinds of lawyers who were not parties to say things against the order of Court 2, w/o hearing petitioner. He tried to justify his role in the medical college case &amp; speak against `impropriety` of Court 2,&quot; he had added.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a non-governmental organisation represented by Bhushan, had moved a petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the alleged scam. This petition was first posted before a bench headed by Justice Chalameswar on November 10.

The petition was later moved to a bench headed by Justice AK Sikri.Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also moved a similar petition, which was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing.

This bench later referred the matter to a larger five-judge Constitution bench, ordered to have five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.On Friday, the petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, similar to Jaiswal`s, came up before the bench of Justice Sikri.

Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in &quot;settling&quot; a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court.

The Trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI.Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

The Supreme Court on Friday overruled a Thursday order by the same court

Petitioner and Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan, who had sought an SIT Investigation into the medical college bribery scam, termed the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Dipak Misra, overriding J Chelameshwar`s order as a `black day` in the history of the Supreme Court."I feel that the behaviour of the CJI and the bench was not proper. We haven`t yet seen the order of the court. We`ll first see and then take the call on our future course of action," Bhushan told ANI."But this is certainly a black day in the history of the Supreme Court," he added. The above-mentioned matter pertains to a medical college bribery scam against IM Quddusi (retired Orissa High Court judge) who was arrested among others, by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On Thursday, a Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J Chelameshwar and Abdul Nazeer, referred the PIL, in the matter, to a five-judge bench, scheduled to conduct a hearing on Monday. However, the case took an interesting turn Friday, when another Supreme Court bench comprising the current CJI, Dipak Misra, pronounced the order by Justice J Chelameswar null and void. Bhushan, earlier in the day, tweeted that CJI Dipak Misra presided over a "hand-picked bench to override yesterday`s order" by another top court bench.Speaking to ANI, Bhushan went on to explain the ordeal of the day`s proceedings. "It was one of the most unfortunate days for the Supreme Court and the judiciary, where the credibility of the court has been greatly undermined and that too effectively by the CJI himself. The petition was seeking an independent SIT investigation into a CBI FIR effectively registered against the judges of SC, including the CJI, particularly the CJI. We were asking for an independent SIT investigation and that it should not be left with the CBI, which is a caged parrot under the Central Government," Bhushan said. "A similar matter was heard the previous day in which it was observed that it is a very important case and can have serious ramifications and therefore, it should be heard by five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court on Monday. Today when our matter came to a different bench, the two judges first apparently said that it should be connected with the earlier case but then at 2:45 pm, I received a call from the registry that the CJI has constituted a seven-judge bench," he added. Bhushan further said that thereafter, a five bench started the proceedings, but instead of hearing the matter on merits, it started asking all kinds of random lawyers present there about the propriety of court no. 2 hearing this matter the previous day. "When I said that the CJI should not be hearing this matter because he has a conflict of interest as this FIR is effectively seeking an investigation into his role also, he ignored my point and once again started listening to random lawyers," he said, adding, "He did not allow me to say anything on the merits of the case. "Bhushan added that after trying for four-five times, he left the court."Thereafter, apparently he passed an order saying that he is the `master of roles`, and that he would only assign the benches," he concluded.Bhushan had earlier tweeted, "Extraordinary proceedings in SC today in the case seeking SIT Investigation in medical college bribery case involving the CJI! CJI presided over a hand picked bench to override yesterday`s order referring this case to top 5 judges.This despite having a direct conflict of interest." "The court proceedings were extraordinary in that the CJI was asking all kinds of lawyers who were not parties to say things against the order of Court 2, w/o hearing petitioner. He tried to justify his role in the medical college case & speak against `impropriety` of Court 2," he had added. The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), a non-governmental organisation represented by Bhushan, had moved a petition seeking an independent court-monitored probe into the alleged scam. This petition was first posted before a bench headed by Justice Chalameswar on November 10. The petition was later moved to a bench headed by Justice AK Sikri.Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also moved a similar petition, which was mentioned before a two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar for urgent hearing. This bench later referred the matter to a larger five-judge Constitution bench, ordered to have five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court.On Friday, the petition filed by Prashant Bhushan, similar to Jaiswal`s, came up before the bench of Justice Sikri. Quddusi allegedly used his influence to help Uttar Pradesh-based Prasad Education Trust in "settling" a matter involving their plea to set up medical colleges pending in the Supreme Court. The Trust owned one of the 46 medical colleges barred by the central government from admitting students. The accused were subsequently granted bail, but the same was not challenged by CBI.Following granting of the bail, two parties (advocate Kamini Jaiswal and CJAR) filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court seeking the constitution of an SIT to investigate the allegations, with a retired judge monitoring the same.

Black day in history of Supreme Court: Prashant Bhushan

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