Senior judges not in bench for key cases
SC RIFT Move comes even as attorney general, Bar Council insist matter resolved
NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday announced the composition of a five-judge Constitution bench that will begin hearing several important cases on January 17. None of the four senior judges, who on Friday aired grievances against the Chief Justice of India (CJI), is on the bench which will hear, among other cases, challenges to Aadhaar, a challenge to its own judgment criminalising homosexual relationships between consenting adults, and a petition on the ban on women between the ages of 10 and 50 entering the Sabarimala temple.
The announcement on the constitution of the bench came on a day when the Supreme Court functioned normally, and both the Attorney General of India and the head of the Bar Council of India claimed the rift had been healed.
However, people familiar with the matter said the issues raised by the judges remain unresolved, and that neither the four judges nor the Chief Justice is willing to deviate from their positions.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra meets attorney general KK Venugopal on the day four judges criticise his way of functioning
Two SC justices, SA Bobde & L Nageshwar Rao, meet Justice Chelameswar, one of the 4 who held meet
Bobde and Rao meet Chelameswar again in a bid to resolve the crisis
A seven-member delegation of the Bar Council of India meets CJI and 14 other judges
SC Bar Association president also meets CJI Misra and other judges offer help
On Friday, the four judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Kurian Joseph, Ranjan Gogoi and MB Lokur — said they were unhappy with the allocation of important cases by CJI Dipak Misra. They suggested that important cases were being heard by junior
All judges back to work, full court convenes for informal meeting
Chief Justice of India constitutes the five-judge constitutional bench without the four next-highest justices to hear key cases judges.
The people familiar with the matter added that the CJI is not in favour of calling a ‘full court’ meeting to defuse the crisis because he believes he has done no wrong.