Judge Roy urges SC colleagues: Can’t put out a fractured face

THE RULING BJP, with 58 members in upper house, is set to gain from latest round of biennial polls but is likely to achieve a maj or it y only in 2019

NEW DELHI: Outgoing judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Amitava Roy, on Friday called on the Supreme Court judges not to project a “fractured face” to the public.

Making a direct reference to the ongoing tussle between Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and four senior judges of the Supreme Court, Justice Roy said at his farewell function organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association: “It is because of the credibility this institution enjoys that people have trust. I feel that we cannot project a fractured face to anyone. “

This is the first time that any judge of the Supreme Court has publicly spoken about the problem plaguing the top court.

On January 12 this year, four senior judges of the Supreme Court, Justices J Chelameswar, R Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, took the unprecedented step of criticising the CJI at a press conference over the allocation of cases.

Since then, attempts have been made to bridge the gap between the judges and also address the issues raised by the four judges.

In a bid to introduce more transparency in the working of the top court, CJI Misra recently made the roster – work allocation – of the judges public.

Meanwhile, in what appears to be a sign of thaw between the CJI and senior SC judges, the Supreme Court collegium on Thursday confirmed the appointment of 37 judges in 5 high courts.

The SC collegium, comprising Justices Misra, Chelameswar and Gogoi, cleared the appointments of additional judges as permanent judges of the high courts.

A copy of the collegium resolution has been put out on the SC’s website, with regard to the appointments to Gujarat, Bombay, Allahabad, Kerala and Rajasthan high courts.

It says: “As per the resolution, certain complaints were received by the Department of Justice and the CJI against a few of the recommendees.

The collegium, however, refused to pay heed to such allegations, noting, “We do not see any merit in the aforesaid complaints as the allegations made therein are found to be false, without any substance or are not supported by any reliable evidence/document. As they do not call for any action, in our considered view, the said complaints deserve to be ignored”.”