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

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

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion.

It said that Loya&#39;s ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning .

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Candrachud was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an intervenor in the case, that reports were shown to the doctors and forensic experts, who were of the opinion that there was no sign of heart attack.

&quot;If there was no sign that Loya suffered a heart attack, then what made the judges who were accompanying him believe that he had a heart attack,&quot; Bhushan asked.

He said the two judges of the Bombay High Court in their statement have said that Loya had complained of chest pain in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.

&quot;Does this not mean that he may have died due to poisoning? Because in poisoning also there are similar symptoms of chest congestion and blood flow stops to the heart,&quot; he said.

Bhushan said that two sitting judges of the high court have given their statements regarding the death of judge Loya and this indicates that they are witness to the case.

&quot;If this is the case, then two judges of bench (referring to Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud) who have served in Maharashtra and know these judges (HC judges), may not hear the case,&quot; Bhushan added.

This argument prompted Justice Khanwilkar to say, &quot;Mr&nbsp;Bhushan, we will be more than happy if the high court hear this matter.&quot;

Justice Chandrachud also interfered and said, &quot;If that is your argument then we will deal with it the way we deal a case. We must tell you, we ask ourselves in every case whether we should consider hearing the matter or not especially when the matter comes from high court.&quot;

Bhushan replied that he has not filed any application seeking recusal of judges from the bench but all he is saying is that two of the judges in this bench knows the Bombay High Court judges who have become witnesses in the case.

This contention of Bhushan was objected by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, who said that this argument is absurd as Supreme Court judges come mostly from high courts and it can&#39;t be that they should recuse from hearing every other case.

Bhushan said he had personally met many cardiologists who had seen these reports and had ruled out that judge Loya had died of a heart attack.

He pointed out the expert opinion of Dr Upendra Kaul, former professor of cardiology at AIIMS and Padma Shri awardee, who had virtually ruled out a heart attack as the cause of death, on the basis of the histopathology and ECG reports.

Bhushan further pointed out that the doctor at Dande Hospital and Meditrina Hospital in Nagpur had noted tall T-waves in the ECG, in their statements filed with the State.

On Thursday, the apex court had taken umbrage against a senior lawyer for casting aspersions on judges that they were only asking &quot;searching questions&quot; to those who brought the Loya death case before it, and not to the Maharashtra government.

Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter.&nbsp;

NGO says Loya's ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning

An NGO, which had sought an independent probe into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya Saturday claimed in the Supreme Court that he might have died due to poisoning as he had complained of chest congestion. It said that Loya's ECG and histopathology report indicate that he did not die due to a heart attack which means that he may have died of poisoning . A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Candrachud was told by advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), an intervenor in the case, that reports were shown to the doctors and forensic experts, who were of the opinion that there was no sign of heart attack. "If there was no sign that Loya suffered a heart attack, then what made the judges who were accompanying him believe that he had a heart attack," Bhushan asked. He said the two judges of the Bombay High Court in their statement have said that Loya had complained of chest pain in the wee hours of December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. "Does this not mean that he may have died due to poisoning? Because in poisoning also there are similar symptoms of chest congestion and blood flow stops to the heart," he said. Bhushan said that two sitting judges of the high court have given their statements regarding the death of judge Loya and this indicates that they are witness to the case. "If this is the case, then two judges of bench (referring to Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud) who have served in Maharashtra and know these judges (HC judges), may not hear the case," Bhushan added. This argument prompted Justice Khanwilkar to say, "Mr Bhushan, we will be more than happy if the high court hear this matter." Justice Chandrachud also interfered and said, "If that is your argument then we will deal with it the way we deal a case. We must tell you, we ask ourselves in every case whether we should consider hearing the matter or not especially when the matter comes from high court." Bhushan replied that he has not filed any application seeking recusal of judges from the bench but all he is saying is that two of the judges in this bench knows the Bombay High Court judges who have become witnesses in the case. This contention of Bhushan was objected by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Maharashtra government, who said that this argument is absurd as Supreme Court judges come mostly from high courts and it can't be that they should recuse from hearing every other case. Bhushan said he had personally met many cardiologists who had seen these reports and had ruled out that judge Loya had died of a heart attack. He pointed out the expert opinion of Dr Upendra Kaul, former professor of cardiology at AIIMS and Padma Shri awardee, who had virtually ruled out a heart attack as the cause of death, on the basis of the histopathology and ECG reports. Bhushan further pointed out that the doctor at Dande Hospital and Meditrina Hospital in Nagpur had noted tall T-waves in the ECG, in their statements filed with the State. On Thursday, the apex court had taken umbrage against a senior lawyer for casting aspersions on judges that they were only asking "searching questions" to those who brought the Loya death case before it, and not to the Maharashtra government. Loya, who was hearing the high-profile Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, had allegedly died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014 when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter.

Justice Loya may have died due to poisoning: NGO to Supreme court

The Supreme Court today said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy.

The top court said that it was of a &quot;prima facie view&quot; that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench &#39;per incuriam&#39; (without due regard to the law).

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC.

&quot;We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8),&quot; the bench said.

The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, &quot;we are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect.&quot;

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014.

Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam.

On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an &quot;appropriate bench&quot; to deal with the &quot;piquant&quot; situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict.

It had said &quot;We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was &#39;per incuriam&#39; and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it.&quot;

A three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur on February 21, had observed that if &quot;judicial discipline&quot; and propriety were not maintained, the institution will &quot;go forever&quot; while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition.

It had said that perhaps there has been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition.

In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons.

It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency.

The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed.

The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that &quot;the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested&quot;.

The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later.

The Supreme Court today said it would test the correctness of two separate verdicts by its benches of similar strengths related to land acquisitions, which recently snowballed into a major controversy. The top court said that it was of a "prima facie view" that a three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict of an earlier three-judge bench 'per incuriam' (without due regard to the law). A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said parties shall file their propositions of law when the matter is taken up for hearing after the conclusion of hearing in another constitution bench matter related to challenge to the validity of section 377 of IPC. "We think it appropriate to state, this bench shall consider all the aspects including the correctness of the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (verdict of 2014) and the other judgments following the said decision as well as the judgment rendered in Indore Development Authority (verdict of February 8)," the bench said. The bench also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, "we are of the prima facie view that it is wrong. A three-judge bench cannot hold the verdict passed by another three-judge bench as per incuriam. But the matter is now with the five-judge bench and it will look into the aspect." The court said it would have heard the matter at present but since it is in midst of hearing another constitution bench matter, therefore it was adjourning the matter to be heard later. At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi appearing for some petitioners said that February 8 verdict passed by a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra cannot hold a verdict passed by a three-judge bench in 2014. Both Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority verdicts dealt with the issue of interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Indore Development Authority said that there are earlier verdicts of the apex court which say that a bench of same strength can say that earlier verdict is per incuriam. On February 22, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had referred the matter relating to land acquisition to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for constituting an "appropriate bench" to deal with the "piquant" situation that had arisen after an order by a three-judge bench which had virtually stayed the operation of a February 8 verdict. It had said "We do not mind our order being set aside. We had said that the order (passed in 2014) was 'per incuriam' and it was permissible under the law. It is for the CJI to decide which bench should hear it." A three-judge bench headed by Justice M B Lokur on February 21, had observed that if "judicial discipline" and propriety were not maintained, the institution will "go forever" while referring to the February 8 verdict passed by another three-judge bench which had held that compensation not availed within a stipulated five year period would not be a ground for cancellation of land acquisition. It had said that perhaps there has been a tinkering with judicial discipline in arriving at a conclusion in the February 8 verdict as the issue should have been referred to a larger bench in case of difference of opinion, as the 2014 verdict had held that non-payment of compensation would be a ground to cancel the land acquisition. In its February 8 judgement, the apex court with a 2:1 majority view, had held the 2014 verdict of another three-judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation case was passed without due regard to the law (as per incuriam) and had said that land acquired could not be quashed due to delay on part of landowners in accepting compensation within five years due to litigation or other reasons. It had held that once the compensation amount for land acquired by a government agency has been unconditionally tendered but the landowner refuses to accept it, this would amount to payment and discharge of obligation on part of the agency. The court had also then held that it will not be open to the person, who has refused the compensation, to raise the point that since the amount has not been deposited in court or paid to him, the acquisition has lapsed. The 2014 verdict was rendered unanimously by a three-judge bench which had held that "the deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested".

Will look into correctness of two 3-judge verdicts on land acquisition: SC

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed.

Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case.

&quot;Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then,&quot; a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any &quot;coercive steps&quot; against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case.

Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident.

The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir).

The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son.

Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was &quot;wrongly and arbitrarily&quot; named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an &quot;unruly and deranged&quot; mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles.

During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

&nbsp;

Supreme court has halted the investigation till April 24 in the case

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed. Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case. "Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said. The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any "coercive steps" against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case. Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident. The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir). The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son. Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was "wrongly and arbitrarily" named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an "unruly and deranged" mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles. During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

Shopian case: J&K says Major Aditya not named as accused, Supreme Court halts probe

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear after four weeks a plea seeking implementation of an Aadhaar-based voting system in elections in order to curtail bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of the election law.

The petition was filed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud which kept the matter for hearing in March.

The plea, filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has sought direction to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to implement an &#39;Aadhaar-based election voting system&#39; to ensure maximum participation in election and curtail fake, bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of section 17-18 of the Representation of People Act, 1950.

It sought a direction to the Centre through Ministry of Law and Justice to take appropriate steps to link movable and immovable property documents of citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation and &#39;benami&#39; transactions.

The plea claimed that duplicate voting was prevalent in the country as the current system has not been able to control booth capturing and bogus voting.

&quot;The current system is better but not the best. Aadhaar based election-voting system has more authentication of voters, better security of voting process, it can protect the voted data and most importantly, the voter can cast his vote from any corner of the country,&quot; the plea said.

The proposed Aadhaar-based voting system involves fingerprint of the voter which is saved in the government&#39;s database with an individual&#39;s Aadhaar number, the petition said.

The petition was filed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud which kept the matter for hearing in March.

The Supreme Court on Monday said it will hear after four weeks a plea seeking implementation of an Aadhaar-based voting system in elections in order to curtail bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of the election law. The petition was filed before a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud which kept the matter for hearing in March. The plea, filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, has sought direction to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate steps to implement an 'Aadhaar-based election voting system' to ensure maximum participation in election and curtail fake, bogus and duplicate voting in the spirit of section 17-18 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. It sought a direction to the Centre through Ministry of Law and Justice to take appropriate steps to link movable and immovable property documents of citizens with their Aadhaar number to curb corruption, black money generation and 'benami' transactions. The plea claimed that duplicate voting was prevalent in the country as the current system has not been able to control booth capturing and bogus voting. "The current system is better but not the best. Aadhaar based election-voting system has more authentication of voters, better security of voting process, it can protect the voted data and most importantly, the voter can cast his vote from any corner of the country," the plea said. The proposed Aadhaar-based voting system involves fingerprint of the voter which is saved in the government's database with an individual's Aadhaar number, the petition said.

Supreme Court to hear plea for Aadhaar-based voting system

The Supreme Court will&nbsp;continue hearing three pleas seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge BH&nbsp;Loya on Monday.

The petitions will be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.

The apex court had earlier asked the Maharashtra Government to submit the postmortem report of the CBI judge, who had died in alleged suspicious circumstances in 2014, citing that the &quot;matter was very serious.&quot;

As per reports, Maharashtra-based journalist B.S. Lone and activist Tehseen Poonavala had filed independent pleas seeking a fair probe into the death of Justice Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, involving various police officers and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah.

In a press conference held on January 12, Justices Madan B&nbsp;Lokur, Kurien Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and Jasti Chelameswar questioned the conduct of the CJI, alleging that selective Benches were being appointed to preside over certain cases in the apex court.

Justice Loya&#39;s death is one among the certain cases hinted by the four judges.

The petitions will be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court will continue hearing three pleas seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the death of special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge BH Loya on Monday. The petitions will be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra. The apex court had earlier asked the Maharashtra Government to submit the postmortem report of the CBI judge, who had died in alleged suspicious circumstances in 2014, citing that the "matter was very serious." As per reports, Maharashtra-based journalist B.S. Lone and activist Tehseen Poonavala had filed independent pleas seeking a fair probe into the death of Justice Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, involving various police officers and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah. In a press conference held on January 12, Justices Madan B Lokur, Kurien Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and Jasti Chelameswar questioned the conduct of the CJI, alleging that selective Benches were being appointed to preside over certain cases in the apex court. Justice Loya's death is one among the certain cases hinted by the four judges.

Supreme Court to hear plea seeking SIT probe into Justice Loya case

The Supreme Court, which began hearing the petitions asking for a probe into the death of Justice Loya on Monday, said&nbsp;&quot;we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness.&quot;

The court also transferred to itself two petitions from Bombay High Court relating to the&nbsp;alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya. The court also restrained all high courts from entertaining any petition relating to Loya&#39;s death.&nbsp;

The court also asked all parties to catalogue documents in the matter which have not been filed so far and to submit them.&nbsp;

The court also asked lawyers not to cast aspersions on BJP President Amit Shah.&nbsp;

&quot;As of today, it was a natural death. Do not cast aspersions,&quot; the court said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JudgeLoya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JudgeLoya</a> death case: Supreme Court fixed first week of February for further hearing. The Court said, it would examine all the documents related to the death of Justice Loya.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955357102125432833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JudgeLoya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JudgeLoya</a> death case: Supreme Court transfers two cases of Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/955355979394162690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 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>

The court termed as&nbsp;&quot;serious&quot; the issues raised in the pleas; saying &quot;we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness&quot;.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court began hearing the petitions asking for a probe into the allegedly mysterious death of the judge on Monday

The Supreme Court, which began hearing the petitions asking for a probe into the death of Justice Loya on Monday, said "we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness." The court also transferred to itself two petitions from Bombay High Court relating to the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge BH Loya. The court also restrained all high courts from entertaining any petition relating to Loya's death. The court also asked all parties to catalogue documents in the matter which have not been filed so far and to submit them. The court also asked lawyers not to cast aspersions on BJP President Amit Shah. "As of today, it was a natural death. Do not cast aspersions," the court said. #JudgeLoya death case: Supreme Court fixed first week of February for further hearing. The Court said, it would examine all the documents related to the death of Justice Loya. — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × #JudgeLoya death case: Supreme Court transfers two cases of Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court — ANI (@ANI) January 22, 2018 × The court termed as "serious" the issues raised in the pleas; saying "we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness".

Justice Loya death case: SC says 'we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness'

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 witnessed heated exchange among senior lawyers on Monday during the hearing in Justice Loya case, prompting the bench to shout the lawyers down. 
&nbsp; 
The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, is hearing petitions seeking an independent investigation into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya in 2014. The other two judges on the bench are Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AM Khanwilkar.

Also read:<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-led-bench-of-supreme-court-to-hear-justice-loya-death-case-today-30275"> Congress to raise Judge Loya death case in upcoming budget session of Parliament</a>

Dushyant Dave, the counsel for petitioners Bombay Lawyers Association who are demanding a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case, today objected to senior lawyer Harish Salve&#39;s presence. Dave argued that Salve has previously represented BJP chief Amit Shah - one of the accused who was later discharged - in the case and hence should stay aw.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-loya-death-case-sc-says-we-must-look-into-all-documents-with-utmost-seriousness-30340">Justice Loya death case: SC says &#39;we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness&#39;</a> 
&nbsp; 
The petitioners also objected to the presence of another senior lawyer, Pallav Sisodia, referring to the conflict of interest since he too had appeared for Shah. 
&nbsp; 
Soon the decibel levels rose and Justice DY Chandrachud, part of the CJI-led bench, snapped at the lawyers, &quot;You should maintain the decorum of the court, this is not a fish market.&quot; 
&nbsp; 
Justice Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague&#39;s daughter. At that time was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which BJP chief Amit Shah was an accused. 
&nbsp; 
The judge who replaced justice&nbsp;Loya had ruled that there was no evidence against the BJP chief to be put on trial. 
&nbsp; 
His death came under the spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister fuelled suspicion about the circumstances surrounding it. 
&nbsp; 
Loya&#39;s family has since said that they no longer believe foul play was involved in his death. 
&nbsp; 
Anuj Loya, the son of special CBI judge, said on January 14 that his father had died of natural causes and that the family does not want any further investigation. 
&nbsp; 
During the hearing on January 22, the Supreme Court had restrained other high courts from entertaining any petition relating to Loya&#39;s death and transferred to itself the pleas pending before the Bombay High Court.

The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, is hearing petitions seeking an independent investigation into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya in 2014

The Supreme Court witnessed heated exchange among senior lawyers on Monday during the hearing in Justice Loya case, prompting the bench to shout the lawyers down. The three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, is hearing petitions seeking an independent investigation into the alleged mysterious death of special CBI judge B H Loya in 2014. The other two judges on the bench are Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AM Khanwilkar. Also read: Congress to raise Judge Loya death case in upcoming budget session of Parliament Dushyant Dave, the counsel for petitioners Bombay Lawyers Association who are demanding a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case, today objected to senior lawyer Harish Salve's presence. Dave argued that Salve has previously represented BJP chief Amit Shah - one of the accused who was later discharged - in the case and hence should stay aw. Also read: Justice Loya death case: SC says 'we must look into all documents with utmost seriousness' The petitioners also objected to the presence of another senior lawyer, Pallav Sisodia, referring to the conflict of interest since he too had appeared for Shah. Soon the decibel levels rose and Justice DY Chandrachud, part of the CJI-led bench, snapped at the lawyers, "You should maintain the decorum of the court, this is not a fish market." Justice Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. At that time was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which BJP chief Amit Shah was an accused. The judge who replaced justice Loya had ruled that there was no evidence against the BJP chief to be put on trial. His death came under the spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister fuelled suspicion about the circumstances surrounding it. Loya's family has since said that they no longer believe foul play was involved in his death. Anuj Loya, the son of special CBI judge, said on January 14 that his father had died of natural causes and that the family does not want any further investigation. During the hearing on January 22, the Supreme Court had restrained other high courts from entertaining any petition relating to Loya's death and transferred to itself the pleas pending before the Bombay High Court.

'This is not a fish market': Supreme Court slams noisy lawyers in Loya case hearing

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

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

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

CJI Dipak Misra meets 4 Supreme Court judges to diffuse crisis

A five-member constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the various petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar.

The PILs have also been filed regarding the linkage of the 12 digit number with mobile phones, bank accounts and others.&nbsp;

Debates on the validity of Aadhaar&nbsp;have been on the rise since the government introduced the identification number.&nbsp;

A recent media report had revealed a case of a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/whatsapp-group-sold-aadhaar-details-for-rs-500-uidai-denies-report-28548" target="_blank"> major data breach</a> involving access to personal details of the cardholder&nbsp;with only Rs 500.

The Unique&nbsp;Identification Authority has recently introduced a more secure process for keeping the Aadhaar details safe. The Authority&nbsp;introduced <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-issues-virtual-id-against-aadhaar-to-strengthen-data-security-29128" target="_blank">virtual IDs </a>for Aadhaar holders which can be used in lieu of a person&#39;s Aadhaar number. It will be a random 16 digit number which will provide limited details like the name, address, and photograph of the holder.&nbsp;

It&nbsp;also said that it would also allow <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uidai-says-face-recognition-will-be-allowed-to-verify-aadhaar-cardholders-29579" target="_top">Aadhaar cardholders to be verified by face recognition</a>.&nbsp;The facial authentication is expected to add a further layer of security to Aadhaar cardholders.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Expecttoday?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Expecttoday</a>: Supreme Court to begin hearing petitions challenging validity of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Aadhaar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Aadhaar</a> and its mandatory linkage with several services
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/953443574225317889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 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>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A five-member constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India will hear the various petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar

A five-member constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra will hear the various petitions challenging the validity of Aadhaar. The PILs have also been filed regarding the linkage of the 12 digit number with mobile phones, bank accounts and others. Debates on the validity of Aadhaar have been on the rise since the government introduced the identification number. A recent media report had revealed a case of a major data breach involving access to personal details of the cardholder with only Rs 500. The Unique Identification Authority has recently introduced a more secure process for keeping the Aadhaar details safe. The Authority introduced virtual IDs for Aadhaar holders which can be used in lieu of a person's Aadhaar number. It will be a random 16 digit number which will provide limited details like the name, address, and photograph of the holder. It also said that it would also allow Aadhaar cardholders to be verified by face recognition. The facial authentication is expected to add a further layer of security to Aadhaar cardholders. #Expecttoday: Supreme Court to begin hearing petitions challenging validity of #Aadhaar and its mandatory linkage with several services — ANI (@ANI) January 17, 2018 ×

Supreme Court to hear PILs against Aadhaar

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

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

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

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

The 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

In a bid to resolve their differences, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra today met the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court who had hurled several accusations against him including on the issue of allocation of PILs of sensitive nature.

The apex court sources said the Chief Justice met the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- for about 15 minutes before starting the normal work of the day.

Some other judges were also present in the meeting, the sources said.

After the meeting, the CJI and the four judges went ahead with their listed business.

Despite optimism expressed yesterday by legal bodies, the crisis in the Supreme Court over complaints against the chief justice seemed far from over.

At a press conference last week, the four judges had flagged certain problems, including the assigning of cases by the CJI, and said there were certain issues afflicting the country&#39;s highest court.

Earlier in the day, Attorney General K K Venugopal told PTI &quot;I think it (crisis) has not been settled. Lets hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days.&quot;

Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh also exuded confidence that there was a likelihood of the crisis being resolved by the end of this week.

Yesterday, Venugopal and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had said the crisis has ended and there is no dispute now.

Sources said the Chief Justice met the four judges for 15 minutes before the start of the working day

In a bid to resolve their differences, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra today met the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court who had hurled several accusations against him including on the issue of allocation of PILs of sensitive nature. The apex court sources said the Chief Justice met the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- for about 15 minutes before starting the normal work of the day. Some other judges were also present in the meeting, the sources said. After the meeting, the CJI and the four judges went ahead with their listed business. Despite optimism expressed yesterday by legal bodies, the crisis in the Supreme Court over complaints against the chief justice seemed far from over. At a press conference last week, the four judges had flagged certain problems, including the assigning of cases by the CJI, and said there were certain issues afflicting the country's highest court. Earlier in the day, Attorney General K K Venugopal told PTI "I think it (crisis) has not been settled. Lets hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days." Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh also exuded confidence that there was a likelihood of the crisis being resolved by the end of this week. Yesterday, Venugopal and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra had said the crisis has ended and there is no dispute now.

Supreme Court crisis: CJI meets four dissenting judges

The Supreme Court today said the attacks on those opting for inter-caste marriage were &quot;absolutely illegal&quot; and no &#39;khap panchayats, individual or the society can question any adult woman and man marrying of their own choice.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also pulled up the Centre for not taking the matter seriously and not filing its suggestions on the issue, saying such panchayats or bodies cannot threaten adult women and men for marrying each other.

Khaps are caste or community organisations, particularly in the rural areas of north India, which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on regressive and age-old customs and traditions.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,&#39; the court said</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,' the court said" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who represented the Centre, that if the government does not come out with its suggestions, then the court would pass order on the suggestions given by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae.

&quot;You take it from us, whatever the amicus says about khap, we are not concerned with that. What we are concerned is that when an adult girl or boy gets into marriage, no khap, no individual or no society can question them,&quot; the bench said.

&quot;Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,&quot; it said.

The apex court also said such associations cannot collectively punish any men or women for marrying each other of their own choice.

When a man, who was appearing in person on behalf of the khap panchayats, told the court that khaps were not opposing such marriages and there was a social change now, the bench said they should not take it in a regressive manner.

&quot;Even if panchayat is a collective body, they cannot threaten a girl or a boy from marrying each other. Whatever it is, it shall not be archaic. It should be alive,&quot; the court said.

During the hearing, the ASG sought some time to file a response to the suggestions given by Ramachandran, who opposed it saying the plea relates to the issue of honour killings and the government should not delay the matter.

The amicus said the Law Commission, in its report, had dealt with this aspect and suggested a legislation to deal with issue, but the Centre was &quot;taking time&quot; to get responses from the respective state governments as to whether such a law could be passed.

&quot;If you (Centre) do not have suggestions, we will pass order on the suggestions of the amicus,&quot; the bench told the ASG, adding it might evolve a mechanism to deal with the issue.

The bench also reminded the ASG that the matter has been pending before the top court since 2010.

The ASG, however, said the government would respond to the suggestions and sought three weeks time for it.

The bench granted time to the Centre to file suggestions and posted the matter for hearing on February 5.

The apex court had earlier sought suggestions from the petitioner, an NGO &#39;Shakti Vahini&#39;, the amicus curiae and khap panchayats on the issue.

The NGO had moved the court in 2010 seeking directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control honour crimes by taking a number of measures.

Earlier, the court had invited khap panchayats to hear their views before issuing any order to stop them from harassing and killing couples and women in the name of honour.

The Centre had earlier pleaded with the apex court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, as the police was not able to protect women facing ordeal at their hands.

The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active.

It had summoned the Superintendents of Police of Rohtak and Jind districts of Haryana and that of Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh to apprise the court of the situation there.

Several cases of women and men falling victims to khap diktats have been reported over the years, particularly in states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

In 2007, a Haryana court had awarded capital punishment to five persons and life sentence to one for murdering a couple on the orders of a self-styled khap panchayat for marrying against societal norms.

Similarly, a woman from Rajasthan was ordered to live with a man whose wife had eloped with her husband by the Khap of Notara Bhopat village in April 2015.

In 2014, a community panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had banned girls from wearing jeans and keeping mobile phones, claiming that these were having a &quot;bad&quot; effect on them and were responsible for eve-teasing incidents.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud pulled up the Centre for not taking the matter seriously

The Supreme Court today said the attacks on those opting for inter-caste marriage were "absolutely illegal" and no 'khap panchayats, individual or the society can question any adult woman and man marrying of their own choice. A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud also pulled up the Centre for not taking the matter seriously and not filing its suggestions on the issue, saying such panchayats or bodies cannot threaten adult women and men for marrying each other. Khaps are caste or community organisations, particularly in the rural areas of north India, which at times act as quasi-judicial bodies and pronounce harsh punishments based on regressive and age-old customs and traditions. Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal,' the court said × The bench told Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Pinky Anand, who represented the Centre, that if the government does not come out with its suggestions, then the court would pass order on the suggestions given by senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, who is assisting the court as an amicus curiae. "You take it from us, whatever the amicus says about khap, we are not concerned with that. What we are concerned is that when an adult girl or boy gets into marriage, no khap, no individual or no society can question them," the bench said. "Whenever there is any kind of collective attack on a boy or a girl, who are adults, it is absolutely illegal," it said. The apex court also said such associations cannot collectively punish any men or women for marrying each other of their own choice. When a man, who was appearing in person on behalf of the khap panchayats, told the court that khaps were not opposing such marriages and there was a social change now, the bench said they should not take it in a regressive manner. "Even if panchayat is a collective body, they cannot threaten a girl or a boy from marrying each other. Whatever it is, it shall not be archaic. It should be alive," the court said. During the hearing, the ASG sought some time to file a response to the suggestions given by Ramachandran, who opposed it saying the plea relates to the issue of honour killings and the government should not delay the matter. The amicus said the Law Commission, in its report, had dealt with this aspect and suggested a legislation to deal with issue, but the Centre was "taking time" to get responses from the respective state governments as to whether such a law could be passed. "If you (Centre) do not have suggestions, we will pass order on the suggestions of the amicus," the bench told the ASG, adding it might evolve a mechanism to deal with the issue. The bench also reminded the ASG that the matter has been pending before the top court since 2010. The ASG, however, said the government would respond to the suggestions and sought three weeks time for it. The bench granted time to the Centre to file suggestions and posted the matter for hearing on February 5. The apex court had earlier sought suggestions from the petitioner, an NGO 'Shakti Vahini', the amicus curiae and khap panchayats on the issue. The NGO had moved the court in 2010 seeking directions to the central and state governments to prevent and control honour crimes by taking a number of measures. Earlier, the court had invited khap panchayats to hear their views before issuing any order to stop them from harassing and killing couples and women in the name of honour. The Centre had earlier pleaded with the apex court to put in place a mechanism to monitor crimes against women by khap panchayats, as the police was not able to protect women facing ordeal at their hands. The top court had also said that as a pilot project, it would examine the situation in three districts of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh where khap panchayats were active. It had summoned the Superintendents of Police of Rohtak and Jind districts of Haryana and that of Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh to apprise the court of the situation there. Several cases of women and men falling victims to khap diktats have been reported over the years, particularly in states like Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. In 2007, a Haryana court had awarded capital punishment to five persons and life sentence to one for murdering a couple on the orders of a self-styled khap panchayat for marrying against societal norms. Similarly, a woman from Rajasthan was ordered to live with a man whose wife had eloped with her husband by the Khap of Notara Bhopat village in April 2015. In 2014, a community panchayat in Uttar Pradesh had banned girls from wearing jeans and keeping mobile phones, claiming that these were having a "bad" effect on them and were responsible for eve-teasing incidents.

Attacks on couples by khap panchayats 'absolutely illegal': Supreme Court

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn&#39;t include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him last week.

The news comes even as the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-row-resolved-kahani-khatam-says-bar-council-29596">Bar Council of India</a> and the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/crisis-in-supreme-court-over-attorney-general-k-k-venugopal-29562">Attorney General had said</a> yesterday that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over.

Attorney General KK Venugopal had said there was an informal meeting on Monday&nbsp;morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four Supreme Court judges.

&quot;All disputes settled, things are normal (now),&rdquo; Venugopal had said.

The Bar Council of India had said that the crisis has been resolved internally and the &quot;story is over now&quot;.

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who led a seven-member delegation and held hectic discussions with 15 judges including the CJI yesterday, said the controversial issues flagged by the four revolting judges were &quot;internal issues of the family&quot; which have been resolved internally.

&quot;We met around 15 judges yesterday and all of them said that BCI has done a very good job and this mediation was required. They have now resolved the issue.&quot;

&quot;BCI has been successful in its effort. No outside interference was required in the matter and even we will not impose any condition on them and they themselves would solve their differences over a cup of tea,&quot; he added.

On January 12, the four judges - Justice&nbsp;J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had held an unprecedented press conference and raised several&nbsp;concerns including the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice.&nbsp;

They had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts.

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn't include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which doesn't include the four judges who went public with their grievances against him last week. The news comes even as the Bar Council of India and the Attorney General had said yesterday that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over. Attorney General KK Venugopal had said there was an informal meeting on Monday morning between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four Supreme Court judges. "All disputes settled, things are normal (now),” Venugopal had said. The Bar Council of India had said that the crisis has been resolved internally and the "story is over now". BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who led a seven-member delegation and held hectic discussions with 15 judges including the CJI yesterday, said the controversial issues flagged by the four revolting judges were "internal issues of the family" which have been resolved internally. "We met around 15 judges yesterday and all of them said that BCI has done a very good job and this mediation was required. They have now resolved the issue." "BCI has been successful in its effort. No outside interference was required in the matter and even we will not impose any condition on them and they themselves would solve their differences over a cup of tea," he added. On January 12, the four judges - Justice J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had held an unprecedented press conference and raised several concerns including the assignment of cases by the Chief Justice. They had criticised the distribution of cases by the chief justice to judges and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country's courts. The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra's new constitution bench excludes 'rebel' judges

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

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

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

Crisis in Supreme Court over: Attorney General K K Venugopal

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-israel-ink-9-pacts-modi-invites-israeli-defence-companies-for-co-production-29610">India, Israel ink 9 pacts, Modi invites Israeli defence companies for co-production</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi today invited Israeli defence companies to India for co-production, as he held comprehensive talks on strategic issues with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, who called him a &quot;revolutionary leader&quot;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/gen-rawats-remarks-on-dokalam-unconstructive-china-29595">China says General Rawat&#39;s remarks on Dokalam &#39;unconstructive&#39;</a>

China today hit out at Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat for calling Dokalam a disputed territory and said that his &quot;unconstructive&quot; comments were not helpful for maintaining peace at the borders.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-row-resolved-kahani-khatam-says-bar-council-29596">Supreme Court crisis: Row resolved, &#39;</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-row-resolved-kahani-khatam-says-bar-council-29596">kahani</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-crisis-row-resolved-kahani-khatam-says-bar-council-29596"> khatam&#39;, says Bar Council</a>

The Bar Council of India (BCI) today said the crisis, which had erupted after four top Supreme Court judges came out openly against an allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has been resolved internally and the &quot;story is over now&quot;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/second-floor-of-indonesia-stock-exchange-collapses-around-a-dozen-people-injured-29560">Mezzanine floor of Indonesia Stock Exchange collapses, 75 injured</a>

At least 75 people were injured Monday when a mezzanine floor at Indonesia&#39;s stock exchange building collapsed into the lobby, police said, with victims carried out of the debris-filled building on stretchers.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/air-india-to-be-split-into-4-entities-ahead-of-sale-reports-29606">Air India to be split into 4 entities ahead of sale: Reports</a>

Once a great airline and now decrepit, Air India would get split into four separate companies and the government is offering at least 51% in each of them as part of their disinvestment plan.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/baghdad-suicide-attack-26-killed-several-injured-29547">Baghdad suicide attack: 35 killed, several injured</a>

Thirty-five people were killed and at least 80 others wounded in two deadly suicide bombings in Baghdad on Monday morning.

India, Israel ink 9 pacts, Modi invites Israeli defence companies for co-production Prime Minister Narendra Modi today invited Israeli defence companies to India for co-production, as he held comprehensive talks on strategic issues with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu, who called him a "revolutionary leader". China says General Rawat's remarks on Dokalam 'unconstructive' China today hit out at Indian Army chief General Bipin Rawat for calling Dokalam a disputed territory and said that his "unconstructive" comments were not helpful for maintaining peace at the borders. Supreme Court crisis: Row resolved, 'kahani khatam', says Bar Council The Bar Council of India (BCI) today said the crisis, which had erupted after four top Supreme Court judges came out openly against an allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has been resolved internally and the "story is over now". Mezzanine floor of Indonesia Stock Exchange collapses, 75 injured At least 75 people were injured Monday when a mezzanine floor at Indonesia's stock exchange building collapsed into the lobby, police said, with victims carried out of the debris-filled building on stretchers. Air India to be split into 4 entities ahead of sale: Reports Once a great airline and now decrepit, Air India would get split into four separate companies and the government is offering at least 51% in each of them as part of their disinvestment plan. Baghdad suicide attack: 35 killed, several injured Thirty-five people were killed and at least 80 others wounded in two deadly suicide bombings in Baghdad on Monday morning.

WION Evening News Brief, 15 January 2018

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

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

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

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

Days after Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was accused of lack of transparency in the selection of judges to try cases, he may&nbsp;meet&nbsp;the rebel judges of the supreme court on Sunday to resolve the problems, media reports said.

One of the rebel judges, Justice Kurian Joesph also told a local news channel that they &quot;stood up for justice and judiciary and an issue came to attention and it will certainly be solved.&quot;

A&nbsp;formal meeting is also scheduled at 7:30 in the evening today, between a team from the Bar Council of India, the regulatory body of lawyers and the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra.

The seven-member panel will also&nbsp;meet&nbsp;other judges of the top court through the day to seek their opinion on resolving the unprecedented crisis that has hit the judiciary.

Meanwhile, Bar Council members met Justice Chelameswar at his residence, and said that they &quot;will react after meeting Chief Justice of India and other three judges in the evening.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Bar Council of India delegation leaves after meeting Justice Chelameswar, member says &#39;will react after meeting Chief Justice of India &amp; other three judges in the evening&#39; <a href="https://t.co/G2bGdXyn74">pic.twitter.com/G2bGdXyn74</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/952435506633043968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 14, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Four senior-most judges of the supreme court, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, held a conference on Friday criticising Dipak Misra for the distribution of cases and raised concerns about judicial appointments. They said all top judges should be involved in setting the procedures used to hire and promote judges in all the country&#39;s courts.&nbsp;

The judges said the issues involving its administration were serious enough to prompt them to go public. However,&nbsp;they also claimed that the issue was raised internally but after receiving an&nbsp;unsatisfactory response they went public with the issues.

The conference sent shock waves across the country as during the conference the chief justices claimed that if the &quot;equanimity does not get maintained the democracy won&#39;t survive in the country&quot;

The bar council has expressed strong disapproval saying that &quot;judges should not have held a press conference on a &quot;minor issue of roster&quot;. He said a delegation from the council would meet the senior judges and the chief justice of India and request them not to bring such issues before the public.&quot;

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

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

Chief Justice of India to meet rebel judges today: Reports

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court came to limelight Friday after they held an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/what-justice-chelameshwar-and-other-senior-supreme-court-judges-said-in-open-meet-today-29316" target="_blank">unprecedented press conference</a>&nbsp;and talked about their <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra</a>.

The judges in the press conference&nbsp;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.

The four judges who spoke out today were Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph.

Justice Chelameswar

Justice Chelameswar, who is currently the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court was born on June 23, 1953. He has served as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court in 2007. On October 10, 2011, he was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court.

He gave major judgements on freedom of speech, aadhaar and National judicial&nbsp;appointments commission.

In a two-judge bench of Supreme Court, Chelameswar along with Rohinton Fali Nariman struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The judges held the section as unconstitutional. The law awarded three years imprisonment to anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which &quot;causes annoyance or inconvenience&quot;.&nbsp;

In a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, he along with Sharad Arvind Bobde and Chokkalingam Nagappan approved an earlier order of the apex court clarifying that Indian citizens would not be deprived of basic services and government subsidies in absence of aadhaar.&nbsp;

Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Justice Ranjan Gogoi was born on November 18, 1954. He was appointed as the permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on February 18, 2001 and was elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana Court on February 12, 2011.&nbsp; He was appointed as Judge to the Supreme Court on April 23, 2012.&nbsp;

Justice Gogoi has been part of several judgements that have reformed the structure of the Indian judiciary system.&nbsp;

His bench had passed the order bringing in new electoral reforms. After the remarkable judgement, a candidate can contest elections only after making full and honest disclosure of his assets, educational and criminal background.

His bench restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders/prominent persons in government-funded advertisements.&nbsp;

He along with other judges in a bench had declined to consider Jat community under the backward status.&nbsp;

A bench of seven judges including him issued a contempt order against Justice CS Karnan on the charge of contempt of court and degrading the judiciary.&nbsp;

Justice Madan B Lokur

Justice Madan B Lokur was born on December 31, 1953. He has vast experience in Civil, Criminal, Constitution, Revenue and Service Law and was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court in 2011.&nbsp;

He was part of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Divisional Bench in 2012 that had struck down Government of India&#39;s decision to allocate 4.5 per cent sub-quota (within the 27% Other Backward Classes quota) for minorities. The bench ruled out the government&#39;s decision saying it was based on religion.&nbsp;

While serving as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, he suspended Special CBI Judge T Pattabhirama Rao and ordered his prosecution in a Mining scam case relating to the Reddy brothers.

Justice Kurian Joseph

Justice Kurian Joseph, born on November 30,&nbsp;1953, was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court in 2013. He had served as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2010. His retirement is scheduled for November 30, 2018.&nbsp;

Justice Joseph along with two other judges is hearing the controversial Coal Allocation Scam case.

He was also part of a three-judge bench that overruled the Afzal Guru decision on the point of admissibility of electronic evidence.

&nbsp;

The judges in the press conference said that the administration of the apex court is 'sometimes not in order' and many 'less than desirable things' have taken place

Four senior judges of the Supreme Court came to limelight Friday after they held an unprecedented press conference and talked about their differences with the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The judges in the press conference said that the administration of the apex court is "sometimes not in order" and many "less than desirable things" have taken place. The four judges who spoke out today were Justice J Chelameswar, the second senior-most judge in the Supreme Court, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph. Justice Chelameswar Justice Chelameswar, who is currently the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court was born on June 23, 1953. He has served as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court in 2007. On October 10, 2011, he was elevated as judge of the Supreme Court. He gave major judgements on freedom of speech, aadhaar and National judicial appointments commission. In a two-judge bench of Supreme Court, Chelameswar along with Rohinton Fali Nariman struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The judges held the section as unconstitutional. The law awarded three years imprisonment to anyone accused of posting emails or other electronic messages which "causes annoyance or inconvenience". In a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, he along with Sharad Arvind Bobde and Chokkalingam Nagappan approved an earlier order of the apex court clarifying that Indian citizens would not be deprived of basic services and government subsidies in absence of aadhaar. Justice Ranjan Gogoi Justice Ranjan Gogoi was born on November 18, 1954. He was appointed as the permanent Judge of Gauhati High Court on February 18, 2001 and was elevated as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana Court on February 12, 2011. He was appointed as Judge to the Supreme Court on April 23, 2012. Justice Gogoi has been part of several judgements that have reformed the structure of the Indian judiciary system. His bench had passed the order bringing in new electoral reforms. After the remarkable judgement, a candidate can contest elections only after making full and honest disclosure of his assets, educational and criminal background. His bench restrained ruling parties from publishing photographs of political leaders/prominent persons in government-funded advertisements. He along with other judges in a bench had declined to consider Jat community under the backward status. A bench of seven judges including him issued a contempt order against Justice CS Karnan on the charge of contempt of court and degrading the judiciary. Justice Madan B Lokur Justice Madan B Lokur was born on December 31, 1953. He has vast experience in Civil, Criminal, Constitution, Revenue and Service Law and was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court in 2011. He was part of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Divisional Bench in 2012 that had struck down Government of India's decision to allocate 4.5 per cent sub-quota (within the 27% Other Backward Classes quota) for minorities. The bench ruled out the government's decision saying it was based on religion. While serving as the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court, he suspended Special CBI Judge T Pattabhirama Rao and ordered his prosecution in a Mining scam case relating to the Reddy brothers. Justice Kurian Joseph Justice Kurian Joseph, born on November 30, 1953, was elevated as the judge of Supreme Court in 2013. He had served as Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 2010. His retirement is scheduled for November 30, 2018. Justice Joseph along with two other judges is hearing the controversial Coal Allocation Scam case. He was also part of a three-judge bench that overruled the Afzal Guru decision on the point of admissibility of electronic evidence.

Things you should know about SC judges who addressed media on Friday

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

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

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

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: A profile

For the first time in the history of the Supreme Court, four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media on differences with the CJI earlier in the day. The unprecedented press conference received mixed reactions from political parties, activists, lawyers and former&nbsp;judges. Following are the some of the early reactions:&nbsp;

&nbsp;

PB Sawant, former Supreme Court judge&nbsp; 
Judges had to come before media and take this unprecedented step. This means that there is a serious dispute, either with Chief Justice of India (CJI) or some internal dispute

Soli Sorabjee, Former AG&nbsp; 
Giving a Press Conference is not the right way 
&nbsp; 
Indira Jaising, Supreme Court advocate&nbsp; 
I think it&#39;s a historic press conference. It was very well done. I think we, the people of India, have a right to know what is going on within the judiciary &amp; I welcome this.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Mukul Mudgal, retired High Court judge&nbsp; 
There must be some serious reason that they were left with no other option but to hold a Press Conference. But what connection Loya has with this? I know nothing about this &amp; I don&#39;t want to make comments about any political matter: Mukul Mudgal, retired High Court judge&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Salman Khurshid, senior advocate 
Deeply saddened and pained, also feel a sense of agony that highest court of land should come under such severe stress that forces judges to address the media 
&nbsp; 
Ujjwal Nikam, senior lawyer 
This is a black day for Judiciary. Today&#39;s press conference would cause a bad precedent. From now on every common man could look at all judicial order with suspicion. Every judgement will be questioned

Prashant Bhushan, lawyer &amp; politician 
&quot;It is certainly a very serious development which has cast a huge shadow on the Chief Justice. Somebody had to confront the situation, where CJ is blatantly misusing his powers, hence the unprecedented step&quot; 
&nbsp; 
Justice R.S. Sodhi (Retd) 
I think all 4 judges should be impeached, they have no business to sit there and deliver verdicts anymore. This trade unionism is wrong. Democracy in danger is not for them to say, we have parliament, courts, police functioning. Issues don&#39;t matter. It is their complaint on the administrative matter. They are only 4, there are 23 others. 4 get together and show the Chief Justice in a poor light. It is immature &amp; childish behaviour 
&nbsp; 
KTS Tulsi, advocate SC on 4 judges&#39; letter to CJI 
It&#39;s quite shocking. There must have been compelling reasons for the senior-most judges to have adopted this course of action. One could see pain on their faces while they were speaking

&nbsp;Yashwant Sinha, BJP 
Absolutely unprecedented, the press conference of the four senior judges of supreme court. Most important take away &#39;when national interest is at stake ordinary rules of business do not apply. 
&nbsp; 
Yogendra Yadav, National President of Swaraj India 
So, it&#39;s not just one case. Some of the most respected judges have raised larger questions about judiciary&#39;s independence is being compromised. Time for every democracy loving citizen to stand for judiciary, stand with independent judges

Subramanian Swamy, BJP 
We can&#39;t criticize them, they are men of great integrity &amp; have sacrificed a lot of their legal career, where they could&#39;ve made money as senior counsels. We must respect them. PM must ensure that the 4 judges &amp; CJI, in fact whole SC come to one opinion &amp; proceed further

 
&nbsp;

This is a black day for Judiciary. Today's press conference would cause a bad precedent, said Ujjwal Nikam, senior lawyer

For the first time in the history of the Supreme Court, four sitting Supreme Court judges Justice Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chelameswar and Justice Ranjan Gogoi addressed the media on differences with the CJI earlier in the day. The unprecedented press conference received mixed reactions from political parties, activists, lawyers and former judges. Following are the some of the early reactions: PB Sawant, former Supreme Court judge Judges had to come before media and take this unprecedented step. This means that there is a serious dispute, either with Chief Justice of India (CJI) or some internal dispute Soli Sorabjee, Former AG Giving a Press Conference is not the right way Indira Jaising, Supreme Court advocate I think it's a historic press conference. It was very well done. I think we, the people of India, have a right to know what is going on within the judiciary & I welcome this. Mukul Mudgal, retired High Court judge There must be some serious reason that they were left with no other option but to hold a Press Conference. But what connection Loya has with this? I know nothing about this & I don't want to make comments about any political matter: Mukul Mudgal, retired High Court judge Salman Khurshid, senior advocate Deeply saddened and pained, also feel a sense of agony that highest court of land should come under such severe stress that forces judges to address the media Ujjwal Nikam, senior lawyer This is a black day for Judiciary. Today's press conference would cause a bad precedent. From now on every common man could look at all judicial order with suspicion. Every judgement will be questioned Prashant Bhushan, lawyer & politician "It is certainly a very serious development which has cast a huge shadow on the Chief Justice. Somebody had to confront the situation, where CJ is blatantly misusing his powers, hence the unprecedented step" Justice R.S. Sodhi (Retd) I think all 4 judges should be impeached, they have no business to sit there and deliver verdicts anymore. This trade unionism is wrong. Democracy in danger is not for them to say, we have parliament, courts, police functioning. Issues don't matter. It is their complaint on the administrative matter. They are only 4, there are 23 others. 4 get together and show the Chief Justice in a poor light. It is immature & childish behaviour KTS Tulsi, advocate SC on 4 judges' letter to CJI It's quite shocking. There must have been compelling reasons for the senior-most judges to have adopted this course of action. One could see pain on their faces while they were speaking Yashwant Sinha, BJP Absolutely unprecedented, the press conference of the four senior judges of supreme court. Most important take away 'when national interest is at stake ordinary rules of business do not apply. Yogendra Yadav, National President of Swaraj India So, it's not just one case. Some of the most respected judges have raised larger questions about judiciary's independence is being compromised. Time for every democracy loving citizen to stand for judiciary, stand with independent judges Subramanian Swamy, BJP We can't criticize them, they are men of great integrity & have sacrificed a lot of their legal career, where they could've made money as senior counsels. We must respect them. PM must ensure that the 4 judges & CJI, in fact whole SC come to one opinion & proceed further

Reactions to unprecedented press conference by 4 SC judges

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

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

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

D Raja met Justice Chelameswar in his personal capacity: CPI

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

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

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

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

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

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

WION Evening News brief, January 12, 2018

dipak-misra

Dipak Misra, News on Dipak Misra, stories on Dipak Misra, articles on Dipak Misra, Dipak Misra stories at Wion, Dipak Misra news, Dipak Misra latest news

dipak misra