‘SC judges should probe CJI’S role in medical college case’

NEWDELHI: A group of activists and lawyers led by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan on Tuesday alleged misconduct and misuse of powers by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in the case relating to the de-affiliation of a medical college. They also demanded a Supreme Court-monitored probe into the matter.

“In the medical college case, an investigation is necessary to ascertain whether the CJI is involved in the conspiracy,” Bhushan, who addressed a press conference here on behalf of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), said.

He was referring to a case registered by the CBI into an alleged conspiracy to obtain favourable orders from the court by a medical college that was barred from admitting students for two years by the Medical Council of India (MCI), the regulatory body for medical education. The CBI had registered a case against a retired judge of the Orissa high court, a college official, and an alleged middleman in the conspiracy.

Bhushan clarified that while he was not “saying” the CJI “was involved, a probe is necessary”.

CJI Misra was not available for comment.

Bhushan and his colleague, Anjali Bhardwaj, released a 24-page complaint filed by CJAR on Monday with the five seniormost judges of SC after CJI Misra seeking a probe into the allegations against him through an “in-house mechanism” of SC.

The charges levelled by them include “the manner in which the (medical college) case was handled by CJI… abusing his administrative and judicial power”, and his denying permission to the CBI to name a sitting high court judge in the conspiracy. A CBI official independently confirmed that the agency sought permission and it was refused by the CJI.

Hearing a public interest litigation filed by CJAR in December, justice J Chelameswar had ordered that the PIL seeking a probe into the alleged scam be placed before a bench of the five senior-most judges in court .

A day later, the CJI convened a special bench and virtually set aside the order, saying the chief justice was the master of the roster and had the prerogative to set up benches and assign matters.

On Friday, justice Chelameswar was among the four judges to hold a press conference to air grievances against the CJI, including the way he allocates cases and constitutes benches.

MCI lawyer Gaurav Sharma contradicted certain facts presented by Bhushan in his complaint. Bhushan alleged that it was unusual for the apex court to allow the Prasad Education Trust on August 24, 2017, to file its case in the Allahabad high court.

Sharma, however, contended that on August 24, the Supreme Court wanted to dismiss the institute’s case but its counsel sought permission to withdraw and approach the high court. “The Supreme Court allowed this and I don’t think there was anything unusual in it,” he said.