SC dis­misses plea for probe in bribery case

The Hindu - - NEWS -

The court in­di­cated that it was lean­ing in favour of bring­ing a qui­etus to the is­sue, say­ing good­will should pre­vail.

“We still ex­pect and hope the mat­ter will stop at this,” Jus­tice Mishra said.

The 38-page judg­ment drew largely from past verdicts of the Supreme Court deal­ing with “scan­dalous al­le­ga­tions” against judges.

Though not di­rectly ac­cus­ing Ms. Jaiswal, Mr. Prashant Bhushan and oth­ers in­volved in the two petitions of con­tempt of court, the judg­ment makes re­peated ref­er­ences to how past de­ci­sions had dealt with un­founded al­le­ga­tions against judges with an iron hand.

For one, the judg­ment said it was not left to the “whim of the lit­i­gant” to tell the CJI not to hear a case.

It ob­served that “this court has laid down that when im­pu­ta­tions are made against the Chief Jus­tice, it is the pre­rog­a­tive of the Chief Jus­tice to con­sti­tute the Benches and as­sign ju­di­cial busi­ness, and it would not hinge on the whim of the lit­i­gant.”

In fact, an al­le­ga­tion that the Chief Jus­tice can­not con­sti­tute Benches, where im­pu­ta­tions were made against him, only ag­gra­vates the con­tempt, the judg­ment said.

Judges are not re­spon­si­ble for “cor­ri­dor” ru­mours. Re­cusal of a judge can­not be sought in such in­stances on the ground of con­flict of in­ter­est. “No judge can be held re­spon­si­ble for what may [hap­pen] or has hap­pened in the cor­ri­dors, or ‘who pur­ports to sell whom.’”

It is en­tirely the judge’s pre­rog­a­tive to take cog­ni­sance un­der the Con­tempt of Court Act and pun­ish a “per­son who is un­scrupu­lously try­ing to in­flu­ence the de­ci­sion-mak­ing or in­dulging in mal­prac­tices,” the judg­ment said.

The fil­ing of suc­ces­sive petitions by CJAR and Ms. Jaiswal and the prayer to keep the CJI from hear­ing these cases were clear at­tempts at fo­rum-hunt­ing, it held. In this con­text, the ver­dict again re­ferred to a past judg­ment where con­tempt was drawn against an ad­vo­cate for “mud­sling­ing” at the Supreme Court in a “care­less man­ner” through “mean­ing­less and con­tra­dic­tory plead­ings, clumsy al­le­ga­tions.”

It rea­soned that Chief Jus­tice Misra’s Bench had de­cided the med­i­cal col­lege case in ques­tion on Septem­ber 18 be­fore the FIR was reg­is­tered on Septem­ber 19. If so, the case was not pend­ing be­fore the CJI Bench.

The judg­ment re­ferred to an un­suc­cess­ful ef­fort made by Ms. Jaiswal’s lawyers that Jus­tice Khan­wilkar should re­cuse from the three-judge Bench as he was part of the CJI Bench which de­cided the med­i­cal col­lege case on Septem­ber 18.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.