The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/whenever-ram-temple-is-built-in-ayodhya-it-will-be-by-us-yogi-adityanath-186043">Ram Temple at Ayodhya</a> if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday.

"The option of an ordinance has always been there but right now the matter is before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given January 04 as the date to decide about the next bench," said Ram Madhav.

The apex court is scheduled to take up next week the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ljp-makes-public-its-unease-with-bjp-over-ram-temple-185367">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case</a> along with public interest litigation questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter.

The top court`s bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will decide on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench".

"We are hoping that in a very fast track way the SC will take up the matter and conclude it early. If that doesn`t happen then we have to look for other options. That Ram Temple should be built at Ayodhya is a commitment that BJP has supported 20-30 years ago," said Madhav.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was on December 6, 1992, pulled down allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood here.&nbsp;

Since then, several hearings have been held in the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court said that the disputed site in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with two-thirds given to Hindus and one-third to Muslims.

In 2011 the Supreme Court suspended this ruling following the appeals by both Hindu and Muslim groups. Since then, at least 14 petitions have also challenged the ruling.

The apex court in September this year, while ruling on a separate case, remarked that the mosque was "not integral to Islam", a point that bolstered the demand for the construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build Ram Temple at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday.

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build Ram Temple at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday. "The option of an ordinance has always been there but right now the matter is before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given January 04 as the date to decide about the next bench," said Ram Madhav. The apex court is scheduled to take up next week the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter. The top court`s bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will decide on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench". "We are hoping that in a very fast track way the SC will take up the matter and conclude it early. If that doesn`t happen then we have to look for other options. That Ram Temple should be built at Ayodhya is a commitment that BJP has supported 20-30 years ago," said Madhav. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was on December 6, 1992, pulled down allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood here. Since then, several hearings have been held in the Supreme Court to resolve the issue. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court said that the disputed site in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with two-thirds given to Hindus and one-third to Muslims. In 2011 the Supreme Court suspended this ruling following the appeals by both Hindu and Muslim groups. Since then, at least 14 petitions have also challenged the ruling. The apex court in September this year, while ruling on a separate case, remarked that the mosque was "not integral to Islam", a point that bolstered the demand for the construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

Open for 'other options' if SC doesn't fast track Ram temple case: Ram Madhav

A day after he retired, former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he has no regrets over the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-row-chief-justice-of-india-to-meet-rebel-judges-today-29457">controversial January 12 press conference</a> in which he along with three other judges<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332"> flagged various issues with regard to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332">functioning</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/issues-raised-by-sc-judges-internal-matter-of-judiciary-sources-29332"> of the top cour</a>t, and noted that things are changing.

Joseph, who was part of the press conference in which the now Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice M B Lokur and former judge J Chelameswar had raised serious questions including over allocation of cases in the top court, said the systems and practices in the apex court would take time to change as they have been there for quite long.

He also asserted that there is no political pressure in exercise of judicial powers by a judge, but added that the manner in which appointments are "selectively delayed" or "withheld" is "in a way interference" in the administration of justice.

Asked whether he regrets being part of the January 12 press conference, he replied, "What a strange question you are asking? I never regretted whatever I did, I did it very consciously for a cause and for a cause for which there was no other way left. That was the stage when we did it".

When asked whether the crisis to which they had referred was now over in the apex court, Joseph said, "You can't say it fully that the crisis is over because it was an institutional crisis, so it takes a long time for the systems and the practices to change. Hopefully, it would change".

Referring to CJI Gogoi, Justice Joseph said, "It's because one who was part of the clamour for change is also now the captain over there so things should change".&nbsp;

He said that the systems and practices have been there in the apex court for quite a long, so it would take time for them to change, "though it is changing".&nbsp;

"The process of change will continue. Even the earlier chief justice made changes after the press conference," he said.&nbsp; 
When Joseph was asked whether the problem of roster is now over in the apex court, he replied, "Probably that is the one mistake. It is not a question of roster.&nbsp;

"It was question of some unhealthy practice and systems which were followed in the Supreme Court but in the matter of business actually. So it was against that although roster was one of the issues but there were other issues along with that," he added.

Elaborating on issues raised in the press conference, Justice Joseph said, "As I told that roster was one of the issue but not the only issue. There were certain systems and practices which we have been asking like instead of individual taking a decision without consulting anybody, let's have some systems and practices to be followed which would be healthy for the institutions".&nbsp;

He said "it does not look nice particularly for institutions like a court to have an individual exclusively or solely taking a decision".&nbsp;

"That's what we have been asking that let's have a consultative process. Some sort of consultative process," he said and added that such kind of process is at least happening now.

He also spoke on why the four judges of the top court chose to address a press conference, raising the problems on a public platform, and why they did not seek a full court meeting to sort out the problem in-house.

"No judge can convene a full court meeting on its own. Only the chief justice can convene a full court meeting. It was for the CJI to convene a full court meeting. There were many such requests made in this regard," he said.

On allegations of government "interference" in judiciary especially in the context of high profile cases like Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri masjid dispute, Justice Joseph said he would not like to answer the questions with regard to issues which are currently pending before the court.

Asked whether at any point of time he felt any government or political pressure, Joseph said, "There is no political pressure in the judicial exercise of a judge. I am very clear about it."

"No political party or a political system or a political authority have ever requested me to decide a particular case in a particular manner. To me, at least it has never happened. I don't know whether it has happened to anyone else but to me it has not happened. I do believe that there is no such interference in as far as judicial powers," he said.

However, he said there is "something connected with the administration of justice. It is not delivery of justice, what is said as Judge hearing the case and deciding the case. No, one has ever tried to influence a judge".&nbsp;

"But in the matter of appointment the manner in which appointment are being delayed and the appointments have been selectively delayed, the appointments have been withheld. All this are in a way interference," he said.&nbsp;

A day after he retired, former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he has no regrets over the controversial January 12 press conference in which he along with three other judges flagged various issues with regard to functioning of the top court, and noted that things are changing.

A day after he retired, former Supreme Court Judge Kurian Joseph on Friday said that he has no regrets over the controversial January 12 press conference in which he along with three other judges flagged various issues with regard to functioning of the top court, and noted that things are changing. Joseph, who was part of the press conference in which the now Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, Justice M B Lokur and former judge J Chelameswar had raised serious questions including over allocation of cases in the top court, said the systems and practices in the apex court would take time to change as they have been there for quite long. He also asserted that there is no political pressure in exercise of judicial powers by a judge, but added that the manner in which appointments are "selectively delayed" or "withheld" is "in a way interference" in the administration of justice. Asked whether he regrets being part of the January 12 press conference, he replied, "What a strange question you are asking? I never regretted whatever I did, I did it very consciously for a cause and for a cause for which there was no other way left. That was the stage when we did it". When asked whether the crisis to which they had referred was now over in the apex court, Joseph said, "You can't say it fully that the crisis is over because it was an institutional crisis, so it takes a long time for the systems and the practices to change. Hopefully, it would change". Referring to CJI Gogoi, Justice Joseph said, "It's because one who was part of the clamour for change is also now the captain over there so things should change". He said that the systems and practices have been there in the apex court for quite a long, so it would take time for them to change, "though it is changing". "The process of change will continue. Even the earlier chief justice made changes after the press conference," he said. When Joseph was asked whether the problem of roster is now over in the apex court, he replied, "Probably that is the one mistake. It is not a question of roster. "It was question of some unhealthy practice and systems which were followed in the Supreme Court but in the matter of business actually. So it was against that although roster was one of the issues but there were other issues along with that," he added. Elaborating on issues raised in the press conference, Justice Joseph said, "As I told that roster was one of the issue but not the only issue. There were certain systems and practices which we have been asking like instead of individual taking a decision without consulting anybody, let's have some systems and practices to be followed which would be healthy for the institutions". He said "it does not look nice particularly for institutions like a court to have an individual exclusively or solely taking a decision". "That's what we have been asking that let's have a consultative process. Some sort of consultative process," he said and added that such kind of process is at least happening now. He also spoke on why the four judges of the top court chose to address a press conference, raising the problems on a public platform, and why they did not seek a full court meeting to sort out the problem in-house. "No judge can convene a full court meeting on its own. Only the chief justice can convene a full court meeting. It was for the CJI to convene a full court meeting. There were many such requests made in this regard," he said. On allegations of government "interference" in judiciary especially in the context of high profile cases like Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri masjid dispute, Justice Joseph said he would not like to answer the questions with regard to issues which are currently pending before the court. Asked whether at any point of time he felt any government or political pressure, Joseph said, "There is no political pressure in the judicial exercise of a judge. I am very clear about it." "No political party or a political system or a political authority have ever requested me to decide a particular case in a particular manner. To me, at least it has never happened. I don't know whether it has happened to anyone else but to me it has not happened. I do believe that there is no such interference in as far as judicial powers," he said. However, he said there is "something connected with the administration of justice. It is not delivery of justice, what is said as Judge hearing the case and deciding the case. No, one has ever tried to influence a judge". "But in the matter of appointment the manner in which appointment are being delayed and the appointments have been selectively delayed, the appointments have been withheld. All this are in a way interference," he said.

No regrets about  January 12 press conference: Former SC judge Kurian Joseph

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said Monday that "it's in our best interest to heed" the advice given in our constitution".&nbsp;

He added that India's constitution is the "voice of marginalised and prudence of majority" and that "it's wisdom continues to guide us in moments of crisis".&nbsp;

Gogoi was speaking in New Delhi. Today is Constitution Day.

Gogoi added that if we do not heed the advice given in the constitution, "our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos".&nbsp;

Gogoi said that when it was brought into force, the constitution was criticised as "far too large and rigid". But that time has weakened that criticism and "it's a matter of pride that our constitution has lived with great vigour in last 7 decades.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Our constitution is voice of marginalised &amp; prudence of majority. Its wisdom continues to guide us in moments of crisis. It's in our best interest to heed advice under constitution. If we don't,our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos: CJI Ranjan Gogoi <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ConstitutionDay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ConstitutionDay</a> <a href="https://t.co/2RhUsHzrNP">pic.twitter.com/2RhUsHzrNP</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066919043523903488?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
When it was brought into force, our Constitution was criticised. Sir Ivor Jennings termed it as far too large&amp;rigid. Time has weakened criticism&amp;it's a matter of pride that our constitution has lived with great vigour in last 7 decades: CJI Ranjan Gogoi in Delhi <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ConstitutionDay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ConstitutionDay</a> <a href="https://t.co/DtDEjtVvBA">pic.twitter.com/DtDEjtVvBA</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066917056229109760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad also spoke at the function.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We need to trust India's democracy because they have this confidence we can unseat any political leader or political party howsoever popular, howsoever powerful in Delhi or in states: Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in Delhi on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ConstitutionDay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ConstitutionDay</a> <a href="https://t.co/2OZ4OM2yk7">pic.twitter.com/2OZ4OM2yk7</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066924102970212352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ordinary Indian's sixth sense &amp; DNA of his inherent trust in Indian democratic process, regardless of his religion, caste, community, economic status or literacy is the most defining moment of India's constitutional governance: Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ConstitutionDay?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ConstitutionDay</a> <a href="https://t.co/4Ol6dpommX">pic.twitter.com/4Ol6dpommX</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066924100013170688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"We need to trust India's democracy because they (the people) have this confidence we can unseat any political leader or political party howsoever popular, howsoever powerful in Delhi or in states," he said.&nbsp;

India's constitution is the longest in the world. Credit for it is usually given to Dr BR Ambedkar since he was chairman of the drafting committee of the constituent assembly.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said Monday that "it's in our best interest to heed" the advice given in our constitution". He added that India's constitution is the "voice of marginalised and prudence of majority" and that "it's wisdom continues to guide us in moments of crisis".

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said Monday that "it's in our best interest to heed" the advice given in our constitution". He added that India's constitution is the "voice of marginalised and prudence of majority" and that "it's wisdom continues to guide us in moments of crisis". Gogoi was speaking in New Delhi. Today is Constitution Day. Gogoi added that if we do not heed the advice given in the constitution, "our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos". Gogoi said that when it was brought into force, the constitution was criticised as "far too large and rigid". But that time has weakened that criticism and "it's a matter of pride that our constitution has lived with great vigour in last 7 decades. Our constitution is voice of marginalised & prudence of majority. Its wisdom continues to guide us in moments of crisis. It's in our best interest to heed advice under constitution. If we don't,our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos: CJI Ranjan Gogoi #ConstitutionDay pic.twitter.com/2RhUsHzrNP — ANI (@ANI) November 26, 2018 × When it was brought into force, our Constitution was criticised. Sir Ivor Jennings termed it as far too large&rigid. Time has weakened criticism&it's a matter of pride that our constitution has lived with great vigour in last 7 decades: CJI Ranjan Gogoi in Delhi #ConstitutionDay pic.twitter.com/DtDEjtVvBA — ANI (@ANI) November 26, 2018 × Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad also spoke at the function. We need to trust India's democracy because they have this confidence we can unseat any political leader or political party howsoever popular, howsoever powerful in Delhi or in states: Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in Delhi on #ConstitutionDay pic.twitter.com/2OZ4OM2yk7 — ANI (@ANI) November 26, 2018 × Ordinary Indian's sixth sense & DNA of his inherent trust in Indian democratic process, regardless of his religion, caste, community, economic status or literacy is the most defining moment of India's constitutional governance: Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad #ConstitutionDay pic.twitter.com/4Ol6dpommX — ANI (@ANI) November 26, 2018 × "We need to trust India's democracy because they (the people) have this confidence we can unseat any political leader or political party howsoever popular, howsoever powerful in Delhi or in states," he said. India's constitution is the longest in the world. Credit for it is usually given to Dr BR Ambedkar since he was chairman of the drafting committee of the constituent assembly.

In our best interest to heed advice given in constitution: CJI Ranjan Gogoi

It is in “our best interest” to heed the advice of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said on Monday and asserted that not doing so would result in “sharp descent into chaos”.&nbsp;

The Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority and continues to be a guide in moments of crisis and uncertainty, the CJI said at the inaugural function of Constitution Day Celebrations here.

“It is in our best interest to heed the advice of the constitution. If we do not, our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos,” he said. 
Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is celebrated on November 26 to commemorate the Constitution being adopted.

The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949. It came into effect on January 26, 1950. “The constitution has become an integral part of the lives of the Indian people. This is not an exaggeration, one need only to look at the astounding variety of issues that the courts hear daily,” Gogoi said.

“Our Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority. Its wisdom continues to guide us in the moment of crisis and uncertainty,” he said.

When the Constitution was brought into force, it was “widely criticised”, the CJI noted. But time has weakened the criticism and it is a matter of great pride that it has been referred to with great vigour in the last several decades, he stated. He said the Constitution is “not a document frozen in time” and today is not an occasion to celebrate but to test constitutional promises.

“Are we Indians existing in conditions of freedom, equality and dignity? These are questions that I ask myself. Undoubtedly, great advances have been made but there is a lot left to be done. Today, we need just not a celebration but also to chalk out a roadmap for the future,” Justice Gogoi said.

It is in “our best interest” to heed the advice of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said on Monday and asserted that not doing so would result in “sharp descent into chaos”.

It is in “our best interest” to heed the advice of the Constitution, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said on Monday and asserted that not doing so would result in “sharp descent into chaos”. The Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority and continues to be a guide in moments of crisis and uncertainty, the CJI said at the inaugural function of Constitution Day Celebrations here. “It is in our best interest to heed the advice of the constitution. If we do not, our hubris will result in sharp descent into chaos,” he said. Constitution Day, also known as Samvidhan Divas, is celebrated on November 26 to commemorate the Constitution being adopted. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on November 26, 1949. It came into effect on January 26, 1950. “The constitution has become an integral part of the lives of the Indian people. This is not an exaggeration, one need only to look at the astounding variety of issues that the courts hear daily,” Gogoi said. “Our Constitution is the voice of the marginalised as well as the prudence of the majority. Its wisdom continues to guide us in the moment of crisis and uncertainty,” he said. When the Constitution was brought into force, it was “widely criticised”, the CJI noted. But time has weakened the criticism and it is a matter of great pride that it has been referred to with great vigour in the last several decades, he stated. He said the Constitution is “not a document frozen in time” and today is not an occasion to celebrate but to test constitutional promises. “Are we Indians existing in conditions of freedom, equality and dignity? These are questions that I ask myself. Undoubtedly, great advances have been made but there is a lot left to be done. Today, we need just not a celebration but also to chalk out a roadmap for the future,” Justice Gogoi said.

Constitution Day: It’s in our best interest to heed advice under Constitution, says CJI Ranjan Gogoi 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/cbi-vs-cbi-cleaning-the-rot-within-176144">CBI Director </a>Alok Verma's plea against govt's decision to divest him of duties, sending him on leave.&nbsp;

"We are not hearing today. We don't think any of you deserve any hearing. <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/this-mess-is-an-opportunity-for-supreme-court-to-give-cbi-some-muscle-174676">Matter adjourned </a>to November 29, " visibly agitated CJI said.&nbsp;

CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressed displeasure over leakage of confidential information.&nbsp;

The Apex Court was miffed over the leak of CBI Director Alok Verma's confidential response filed Monday with its secretary general.

Senior advocate and Alok Verma's counsel F S Nariman expresses shock over the leak of CBI director's response.

CJI also conveyed unhappiness over mentioning made by Gopal Sankaranarayanan seeking additional time for the reply. Nariman replies that the mentioning was unauthorized and he got information from it only from media. 
&nbsp; 
On Monday, CBI director Alok Kumar Verma filed in the Supreme Court his response on findings of the CVC's preliminary probe report on corruption charges against him in a sealed cover. The apex court had earlier in the day asked Verma to file his response "as quickly as possible" during the day" and made it clear that it will not adjourn the scheduled hearing on Tuesday after his lawyer sought more time.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on CBI Director Alok Verma's plea against govt's decision to divest him of duties, sending him on leave. "We are not hearing today.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing on CBI Director Alok Verma's plea against govt's decision to divest him of duties, sending him on leave. "We are not hearing today. We don't think any of you deserve any hearing. Matter adjourned to November 29, " visibly agitated CJI said. CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressed displeasure over leakage of confidential information. The Apex Court was miffed over the leak of CBI Director Alok Verma's confidential response filed Monday with its secretary general. Senior advocate and Alok Verma's counsel F S Nariman expresses shock over the leak of CBI director's response. CJI also conveyed unhappiness over mentioning made by Gopal Sankaranarayanan seeking additional time for the reply. Nariman replies that the mentioning was unauthorized and he got information from it only from media. On Monday, CBI director Alok Kumar Verma filed in the Supreme Court his response on findings of the CVC's preliminary probe report on corruption charges against him in a sealed cover. The apex court had earlier in the day asked Verma to file his response "as quickly as possible" during the day" and made it clear that it will not adjourn the scheduled hearing on Tuesday after his lawyer sought more time.

Alok Verma case: Supreme Court adjourns hearing till November 29

The Assam government on Saturday suspended Guwahati West Deputy Commissioner of Police for not ensuring adequate security for Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi who was on a visit to the Kamakhya Temple recently.

Bhanwar Lal Meena has been suspended with immediate effect under Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Disciple and Appeal) Rules, 1969, according to an order issued in the name of the Governor by the state Home Department.

The order, signed by Secretary Home (A) Department, Deepak Majumdar, further stated that during the period of this order in force, Meena shall remain at the Assam Police headquarters and not leave it without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

CJI Gogoi and his wife had visited Guwahati on October 17 and his programme was intimated by the General Administration Department to all concerned.

There was, however, lapse of adequate security arrangements for the CJI at Kamakhya Temple causing him inconvenience, the order stated.&nbsp;

The Assam government on Saturday suspended Guwahati West Deputy Commissioner of Police for not ensuring adequate security for Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi who was on a visit to the Kamakhya Temple recently.

The Assam government on Saturday suspended Guwahati West Deputy Commissioner of Police for not ensuring adequate security for Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi who was on a visit to the Kamakhya Temple recently. Bhanwar Lal Meena has been suspended with immediate effect under Rule 3(1) of the All India Services (Disciple and Appeal) Rules, 1969, according to an order issued in the name of the Governor by the state Home Department. The order, signed by Secretary Home (A) Department, Deepak Majumdar, further stated that during the period of this order in force, Meena shall remain at the Assam Police headquarters and not leave it without obtaining permission from the competent authority. CJI Gogoi and his wife had visited Guwahati on October 17 and his programme was intimated by the General Administration Department to all concerned. There was, however, lapse of adequate security arrangements for the CJI at Kamakhya Temple causing him inconvenience, the order stated.

Top Assam police officer suspended for security lapse during CJI's visit

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

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

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

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

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

After holding an unprecedented press conference and capturing public attention over what ails the highest court of the country early this year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to helm the coveted seat of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) starting October 3.

At an event held in the capital last week, Justice Gogoi said that taking on the burgeoning pendency figures will be a priority during his 13-month long tenure as the next CJI.

While Justice Gogoi is yet to reveal his 'plan' to bring down pendency in the courts, which stands at around 3.18 crore cases, he has had a resounding success in bridging the gap between the government and the public in terms of welfare schemes' distribution.

As Executive Chairman of National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), Justice Gogoi spearheaded the program to hold legal service camps across the country wherein government departments set up stalls to highlight various welfare schemes and also made them available for the masses. A recent report released by NALSA said that around 43 lakh people have benefited from the camp.

Justice Gogoi has also been heading a bench in the apex court that is monitoring the preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in his home state Assam. The bench has been supervising the process of updating the NRC, prepared to identify residents of the state and weed out illegal migrants.

As CJI, Justice Gogoi will also be heading the bench of the top court that, for the first time in its history, will face a camera inside courtroom for live-streaming of the proceedings.

The pilot project aimed at bringing "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process will initially live-stream only cases of national and constitutional importance.

Justice Gogoi has also been overseeing the case relating to setting up of special courts across the country to exclusively hear and decide on criminal cases against sitting Members of Parliament and State Assemblies.

Justice Gogoi is also heading a bench looking over the progress in the appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas.

He was also hearing Central Bureau of Investigation's appeal against the acquittal of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the sensational Arushi Talwar murder case.

After a bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the 1994 Ismail Farooqi case to a larger Constitution bench, Justice Gogoi is likely to head the bench or form a new bench to hear Ayodhya dispute case, which is slated for hearing on October 29.

Another case which awaits Justice Gogoi's attention relates to pleas against the practices of polygamy, 'nikah halala', 'nikah mutah' (temporary marriage among Shias) and 'nikah misyar' (short-term marriage among Sunnis) on grounds that these violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.

As per 'nikah halala', if a Muslim woman, after divorce by her husband three times on different instances, wants to go back to him, she has to marry another person, consummate her marriage, divorce her second husband so as to get re-married to her first spouse.

On September 3, President Ram Nath Kovind, appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th CJI. The 64-year-old will be the first Chief Justice from the North Eastern region of the country.

Justice Gogoi will have a tenure of little over 13 months and would retire on November 17, 2019.

After holding an unprecedented press conference and capturing public attention over what ails the highest court of the country early this year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to helm the coveted seat of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) starting October 3.

After holding an unprecedented press conference and capturing public attention over what ails the highest court of the country early this year, Justice Ranjan Gogoi is set to helm the coveted seat of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) starting October 3. At an event held in the capital last week, Justice Gogoi said that taking on the burgeoning pendency figures will be a priority during his 13-month long tenure as the next CJI. While Justice Gogoi is yet to reveal his 'plan' to bring down pendency in the courts, which stands at around 3.18 crore cases, he has had a resounding success in bridging the gap between the government and the public in terms of welfare schemes' distribution. As Executive Chairman of National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), Justice Gogoi spearheaded the program to hold legal service camps across the country wherein government departments set up stalls to highlight various welfare schemes and also made them available for the masses. A recent report released by NALSA said that around 43 lakh people have benefited from the camp. Justice Gogoi has also been heading a bench in the apex court that is monitoring the preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in his home state Assam. The bench has been supervising the process of updating the NRC, prepared to identify residents of the state and weed out illegal migrants. As CJI, Justice Gogoi will also be heading the bench of the top court that, for the first time in its history, will face a camera inside courtroom for live-streaming of the proceedings. The pilot project aimed at bringing "transparency and accountability" to the judicial process will initially live-stream only cases of national and constitutional importance. Justice Gogoi has also been overseeing the case relating to setting up of special courts across the country to exclusively hear and decide on criminal cases against sitting Members of Parliament and State Assemblies. Justice Gogoi is also heading a bench looking over the progress in the appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas. He was also hearing Central Bureau of Investigation's appeal against the acquittal of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the sensational Arushi Talwar murder case. After a bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice Dipak Misra refused to refer the 1994 Ismail Farooqi case to a larger Constitution bench, Justice Gogoi is likely to head the bench or form a new bench to hear Ayodhya dispute case, which is slated for hearing on October 29. Another case which awaits Justice Gogoi's attention relates to pleas against the practices of polygamy, 'nikah halala', 'nikah mutah' (temporary marriage among Shias) and 'nikah misyar' (short-term marriage among Sunnis) on grounds that these violate Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. As per 'nikah halala', if a Muslim woman, after divorce by her husband three times on different instances, wants to go back to him, she has to marry another person, consummate her marriage, divorce her second husband so as to get re-married to her first spouse. On September 3, President Ram Nath Kovind, appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th CJI. The 64-year-old will be the first Chief Justice from the North Eastern region of the country. Justice Gogoi will have a tenure of little over 13 months and would retire on November 17, 2019.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi to overhaul judiciary as next Chief Justice of India

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master.

Luthra, who mentioned the matter before the bench, said the court should fix a date for hearing as it is an urgent matter.

"You wait and see. You give the mentioning memo, we will see to it," the bench said.

In their plea, Luthra along with petitioner advocate Satyaveer Sharma said they are seeking adjudication of the question of law for which they are relying on

the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court.

The plea said the petitioners were also relying on an undated letter addressed to Chief Justice of India and circulated by the four apex court judges.

"This act of the four senior most judges of the court was not less than a sabotage to the judicial system of the country. They tried to arouse public furore in the country in the names of certain internal differences in this court," the plea said.

It said that "the petitioners are aggrieved of the actions and omissions on the part of respondent 1 (Union of India) and respondent 2 (Chief Justice of India), which has resulted into appointment of respondent 3 (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) as the Chief Justice of India instead of reprimanding him for his illegal and anti-institutional act".

The petition said that act of Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 "is illegal and unconstitutional and also against the canons of law because the appointment on highest post of judiciary has been awarded to a person who is guilty of committing judicial impropriety and judicial misconduct".

The plea also sought quashing of the order of appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the Chief Justice of India with effect from October 3.

On September 3, the president has appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He will take oath on October 3 after incumbent Chief Justice Dipak Misra retires.

Justice Gogoi will be the first Chief Justice of India from Assam. The warrant of appointment of Justice Gogoi as Chief Justice had come in less than 10 days after Chief Justice Dipak Misra recommended his name as successor.&nbsp;

Justice Gogoi would have a tenure as Chief Justice of India of about 13 months till his retirement on November 17, 2019.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master.

The Supreme Court will hear a plea on Wednesday challenging the appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the next Chief Justice of India. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud asked petitioner advocate R P Luthra to file the mentioning memo before the court master. Luthra, who mentioned the matter before the bench, said the court should fix a date for hearing as it is an urgent matter. "You wait and see. You give the mentioning memo, we will see to it," the bench said. In their plea, Luthra along with petitioner advocate Satyaveer Sharma said they are seeking adjudication of the question of law for which they are relying on the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court. The plea said the petitioners were also relying on an undated letter addressed to Chief Justice of India and circulated by the four apex court judges. "This act of the four senior most judges of the court was not less than a sabotage to the judicial system of the country. They tried to arouse public furore in the country in the names of certain internal differences in this court," the plea said. It said that "the petitioners are aggrieved of the actions and omissions on the part of respondent 1 (Union of India) and respondent 2 (Chief Justice of India), which has resulted into appointment of respondent 3 (Justice Ranjan Gogoi) as the Chief Justice of India instead of reprimanding him for his illegal and anti-institutional act". The petition said that act of Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 "is illegal and unconstitutional and also against the canons of law because the appointment on highest post of judiciary has been awarded to a person who is guilty of committing judicial impropriety and judicial misconduct". The plea also sought quashing of the order of appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as the Chief Justice of India with effect from October 3. On September 3, the president has appointed Justice Gogoi as the 46th Chief Justice of India. He will take oath on October 3 after incumbent Chief Justice Dipak Misra retires. Justice Gogoi will be the first Chief Justice of India from Assam. The warrant of appointment of Justice Gogoi as Chief Justice had come in less than 10 days after Chief Justice Dipak Misra recommended his name as successor. Justice Gogoi would have a tenure as Chief Justice of India of about 13 months till his retirement on November 17, 2019.

SC to hear plea challenging appointment of Justice Ranjan Gogoi as next CJI

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre.

The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour.

Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days.

At its last meeting on May 11, the Collegium had agreed in principle to reiterate its recommendation for elevating Justice Joseph as a judge of the apex court, almost three weeks after it was returned by the Centre, but could not decide on a date.

It had then adopted a resolution which stated that there was a need for further discussion on the issue of sending the other names of judges to the Centre and had decided to meet again today.

"The Chief Justice and other members of the Collegium have, on principle, unanimously agreed that the recommendation for appointment of Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court (Parent High Court: Kerala)as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be reiterated.

"However, the said reiteration should also be accompanied by the recommendation of the names of Chief Justices of High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, for which detailed discussion is required," the resolution of May 11 had said.

It had also decided to consider the names of other High Court Judges for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court.

Official sources said those high court judges who are in the race to be elevated to the apex court are Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, who is originally from the Calcutta HC, Gujarat HC Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, whose parent cadre is Telangana and Andhra Pradesh HC, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who is originally from Rajasthan HC.

The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court.

The Collegium has recommended the name of Additional Judge Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala to be appointed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court.

"Taking into consideration the material on record, the Collegium finds Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judge (of the Rajasthan High Court).

"In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend, for the present, that Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against one of the existing vacancies," its resolution said.

The collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and the four most senior SC judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, MB Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated on the issue for more than an hour. This was their second meeting in 5 days

The Supreme Court Collegium Wednesday again deferred its decision on the issue of recommending Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for elevation to the top court after it was returned by the Centre. An apex court official said that no decision has been taken as to when the recommendation will be sent to the Centre. The Collegium comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior most judges — justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph — deliberated for more than an hour. Official details on the outcome of the meeting were awaited. This was the Collegium's second meeting in five days. At its last meeting on May 11, the Collegium had agreed in principle to reiterate its recommendation for elevating Justice Joseph as a judge of the apex court, almost three weeks after it was returned by the Centre, but could not decide on a date. It had then adopted a resolution which stated that there was a need for further discussion on the issue of sending the other names of judges to the Centre and had decided to meet again today. "The Chief Justice and other members of the Collegium have, on principle, unanimously agreed that the recommendation for appointment of Justice K M Joseph, Chief Justice, Uttarakhand High Court (Parent High Court: Kerala)as a Judge of the Supreme Court should be reiterated. "However, the said reiteration should also be accompanied by the recommendation of the names of Chief Justices of High Courts for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court, for which detailed discussion is required," the resolution of May 11 had said. It had also decided to consider the names of other High Court Judges for elevation as Judges of the Supreme Court. Official sources said those high court judges who are in the race to be elevated to the apex court are Chief Justice of Madras High Court Indira Banerjee, who is originally from the Calcutta HC, Gujarat HC Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, whose parent cadre is Telangana and Andhra Pradesh HC, and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, who is originally from Rajasthan HC. The government had on April 26 returned the Collegium's recommendation to elevate Justice Joseph seeking its reconsideration, saying the proposal was not in accordance with the top court's parameters and there was adequate representation of Kerala in the higher judiciary from where he hails. It had also questioned his seniority for elevation as a judge of the apex court. The Collegium has recommended the name of Additional Judge Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala to be appointed as a permanent judge of the Rajasthan High Court. "Taking into consideration the material on record, the Collegium finds Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judge (of the Rajasthan High Court). "In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend, for the present, that Justice Ramchandra Singh Jhala, Additional Judge be appointed as Permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court against one of the existing vacancies," its resolution said.

Collegium again defers decision on Justice KM Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

Collegium again defers decision on Justice Joseph's elevation to Supreme Court

The five-judge Collegium of the Supreme Court (SC) is expected to meet on Friday to take a decision on the Centre`s objections on the elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph as a judge of the apex court.

The collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, had earlier met on May 2 to reconsider the issue but had deferred the decision on the same.

Justice Joseph`s name was recommended by the Collegium in January along with senior advocate of the top court and now SC Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra.

The Centre cleared Justice Malhotra`s file but sent Justice Joseph`s file back to the Collegium and asked it to reconsider its recommendation.

Justice Joseph`s name was recommended by the Collegium in January along with senior advocate of the top court and now SC Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra.

The five-judge Collegium of the Supreme Court (SC) is expected to meet on Friday to take a decision on the Centre`s objections on the elevation of Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice K M Joseph as a judge of the apex court. The collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising of Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, had earlier met on May 2 to reconsider the issue but had deferred the decision on the same. Justice Joseph`s name was recommended by the Collegium in January along with senior advocate of the top court and now SC Judge, Justice Indu Malhotra. The Centre cleared Justice Malhotra`s file but sent Justice Joseph`s file back to the Collegium and asked it to reconsider its recommendation.

Justice Joseph elevation: Supreme Court collegium likely to meet today

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

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

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

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

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

A day after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/crisis-in-supreme-court-over-attorney-general-k-k-venugopal-29562">he said </a>that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over, Attorney General of India KK Venugopal today said the row seemed to be unresolved and hoped it will be &quot;fully settled&quot; in a couple of days.

&quot;Yes, I think it has not been settled. Let&#39;s hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days,&quot; Venugopal told PTI.

Asked about reports about the impasse continuing, Venugopal said he has to agree with the view.

&quot;We are in the process of resolving the issue. It would be resolved shortly,&quot; he said.

The Attorney General denied having a meeting with any of the four &quot;rebel&quot; judges or the Chief Justice of India

&quot;Nothing of that sort has happened,&quot; he said when asked whether they had met.

Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh also said the crisis in Supreme Court is likely to be resolved by the end of this week. 
 
&quot;By the end of this week the crisis is likely to be resolved,&quot; he told PTI.

The statements come&nbsp;amid the news that Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has formed a five-judge constitution bench under him to hear several major cases, which <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/chief-justice-of-indias-new-constitution-bench-excludes-rebel-judges-29649">doesn&#39;t include the four judges</a> who went public with their grievances against him last week.

KK Venugopal had said yesterday that there was an informal meeting on Monday 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;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314">On January 12</a>, 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.&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 four senior-most judges<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/judges-who-rebelled-against-cji-resume-work-in-supreme-court-29559"> yesterday attended court </a>and took up routine work.

(With inputs from agencies)

Asked about reports about the impasse continuing, Venugopal said he has to agree with the view

A day after he said that the crisis in the Supreme Court was over, Attorney General of India KK Venugopal today said the row seemed to be unresolved and hoped it will be "fully settled" in a couple of days. "Yes, I think it has not been settled. Let's hope things will be fully settled within 2-3 days," Venugopal told PTI. Asked about reports about the impasse continuing, Venugopal said he has to agree with the view. "We are in the process of resolving the issue. It would be resolved shortly," he said. The Attorney General denied having a meeting with any of the four "rebel" judges or the Chief Justice of India "Nothing of that sort has happened," he said when asked whether they had met. Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh also said the crisis in Supreme Court is likely to be resolved by the end of this week. "By the end of this week the crisis is likely to be resolved," he told PTI. The statements come amid the news that 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. KK Venugopal had said yesterday that 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". 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 four senior-most judges yesterday attended court and took up routine work. (With inputs from agencies)

Crisis in Supreme Court seems to be unresolved: Attorney General K K Venugopal

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 Bar Council of India (BCI) today said the crisis, which had erupted after four top Supreme Court judges came out openly against allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, 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 parleys 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;Kahani khatam ho gaya (the story is over now)&quot;, he said even as he cautioned political parties and their leaders not to take undue mileage from the January 12 press conference by the four judges to raise problems, including the assigning of cases, saying the matter should not be politicised.

&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;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 told reporters here.

At a press conference on January 12, the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had flagged some issues, including assigning of cases in the apex court and judicial appointments, and said there were certain problems afflicting the country&#39;s highest court.

&quot;Everything will be sorted out and they have resolved whatever issues are there. We are expecting that everything will be settled and they will evolve an in-house mechanism,&quot; Mishra.

He also referred to Attorney General&#39;s K K Venugopal&#39;s statement in which he is reported to have said that the issue has been resolved.

&quot;They have resolved the issue and you can see that the courts are functioning smoothly and they are discharging their duties. There is nothing left&quot;, Mishra said.

Responding to a question whether an investigation should be ordered on allegations of the senior most judges, Mishra said the Bar body was not concerned with this and there is no question of any probe.

He also said the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was trying the Sohrabudin Sheikh fake encounter case, should not be raked up as his family members have made their stand clear and want no more harassment.

&quot;There is no question of any probe (into points raised by four judges in the presser). If somebody tries to bring Justice Loya&#39;s issue then you can see their family members have already said there is no need for any investigation and they were being unnecessary harassed.

&quot;We are only concerned with smooth functioning of this institution. We have no right to say and decide whether there should be a Code of Conduct,&quot; he said.

On the issue of bringing more clarity in the functioning of the top court, the BCI Chairman said the system was working properly and &quot;there was transparency&quot;.

&quot;They have evolved a formula and while rejecting a name for elevation they are assigning the reason and it is there on the Supreme Court website. What more transparency do you want,&quot; he said.

He said all the four top judges have resolved the differences and were attending the court today.

To a question whether any action should be taken against them for criticising the Chief Justice of India, he said there is no need of any action and they &quot;are all honest and men of integrity.&quot;

Yesterday, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had met a seven-member delegation of the BCI and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh and assured them that the crisis would be sorted out soon and congeniality would prevail.&nbsp;

BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra cautioned political parties not to take undue advantage of the row

The Bar Council of India (BCI) today said the crisis, which had erupted after four top Supreme Court judges came out openly against allocation of cases by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, has been resolved internally and the "story is over now". BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, who led a seven-member delegation and held hectic parleys 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. "Kahani khatam ho gaya (the story is over now)", he said even as he cautioned political parties and their leaders not to take undue mileage from the January 12 press conference by the four judges to raise problems, including the assigning of cases, saying the matter should not be politicised. "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 told reporters here. At a press conference on January 12, the four judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- had flagged some issues, including assigning of cases in the apex court and judicial appointments, and said there were certain problems afflicting the country's highest court. "Everything will be sorted out and they have resolved whatever issues are there. We are expecting that everything will be settled and they will evolve an in-house mechanism," Mishra. He also referred to Attorney General's K K Venugopal's statement in which he is reported to have said that the issue has been resolved. "They have resolved the issue and you can see that the courts are functioning smoothly and they are discharging their duties. There is nothing left", Mishra said. Responding to a question whether an investigation should be ordered on allegations of the senior most judges, Mishra said the Bar body was not concerned with this and there is no question of any probe. He also said the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, who was trying the Sohrabudin Sheikh fake encounter case, should not be raked up as his family members have made their stand clear and want no more harassment. "There is no question of any probe (into points raised by four judges in the presser). If somebody tries to bring Justice Loya's issue then you can see their family members have already said there is no need for any investigation and they were being unnecessary harassed. "We are only concerned with smooth functioning of this institution. We have no right to say and decide whether there should be a Code of Conduct," he said. On the issue of bringing more clarity in the functioning of the top court, the BCI Chairman said the system was working properly and "there was transparency". "They have evolved a formula and while rejecting a name for elevation they are assigning the reason and it is there on the Supreme Court website. What more transparency do you want," he said. He said all the four top judges have resolved the differences and were attending the court today. To a question whether any action should be taken against them for criticising the Chief Justice of India, he said there is no need of any action and they "are all honest and men of integrity." Yesterday, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had met a seven-member delegation of the BCI and Supreme Court Bar Association President Vikas Singh and assured them that the crisis would be sorted out soon and congeniality would prevail.

Supreme Court crisis: Row resolved, 'kahani khatam', says Bar Council

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

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

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

Chief Justice of India to meet rebel judges today: Reports

The Bar Council, which met with Justice Chelameswar on Sunday, said the ongoing Supreme Court crisis is an &quot;internal matter which will be resolved soon.&quot;

&quot;We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days,&quot; Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra said after meeting with Justice Chelameswar.&nbsp;

In an unprecedented move, the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court (after the Chief Justice of India) had called a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/in-a-first-4-supreme-court-judges-speak-on-corruption-29314" target="_blank">press conference</a> on Friday.&nbsp;

The four judges -- Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- raised a litany of problems, including the assigning of cases, allegedly afflicting the country&#39;s highest court.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<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, SC judges say in press conference</a>

The judges said they had met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra but had failed to get their point across, which is why they were taking recourse to the press conference.&nbsp;

They also released a letter written by them to the CJI.&nbsp;

The judges however did not mention any specifics when questioned by reporters.&nbsp;

Their press conference however, considering that it is unprecedented -- nothing of the sort has ever happened before -- has been called a &quot;virtual revolt&quot;.&nbsp;

Two of the four judges however have backed down since their press conference.&nbsp;

On Saturday, Justice Ranjan Gogoi said &quot;there is no crisis&quot; in the Supreme Court. And before that, Justice Lokur had said there was no need for outside intervention.&nbsp;

The Bar Council will be meeting all the other judges of the Supreme Court through the day, and has been conducting what has been described as &quot;hectic parlaying&quot;, to try and resolve the crisis.&nbsp;

It is expected to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-row-chief-justice-of-india-to-meet-rebel-judges-today-29457" target="_blank">meet Chief Justice Misra</a> at about 7.30 pm today.&nbsp;

The Bar Council made the statement after meeting with Justice Chelameswar, one of the four judges to have called an unprecedented press conference on Friday

The Bar Council, which met with Justice Chelameswar on Sunday, said the ongoing Supreme Court crisis is an "internal matter which will be resolved soon." "We have been told that there is no crisis. It is an internal matter which will be resolved soon. I am sure a solution will be found in two-three days," Bar Council of India Chairperson Manan Mishra said after meeting with Justice Chelameswar. In an unprecedented move, the four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court (after the Chief Justice of India) had called a press conference on Friday. The four judges -- Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- raised a litany of problems, including the assigning of cases, allegedly afflicting the country's highest court. Also read: Let the nation decide on CJI's impeachment, SC judges say in press conference The judges said they had met Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra but had failed to get their point across, which is why they were taking recourse to the press conference. They also released a letter written by them to the CJI. The judges however did not mention any specifics when questioned by reporters. Their press conference however, considering that it is unprecedented -- nothing of the sort has ever happened before -- has been called a "virtual revolt". Two of the four judges however have backed down since their press conference. On Saturday, Justice Ranjan Gogoi said "there is no crisis" in the Supreme Court. And before that, Justice Lokur had said there was no need for outside intervention. The Bar Council will be meeting all the other judges of the Supreme Court through the day, and has been conducting what has been described as "hectic parlaying", to try and resolve the crisis. It is expected to meet Chief Justice Misra at about 7.30 pm today.

Supreme Court crisis: 'Internal matter, will be resolved soon,' says Bar Council of India

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

ranjan-gogoi

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

ranjan gogoi