Corruption
in Indian Judiciary
8
of 16 CJIs were corrupt: Ex-Law Minister
Friday,
September 17, 2010, 09:08
Zeenews
Bureau
New
Delhi: Former Union Law Minister Shanti Bhushan Thursday told the Supreme Court
that at least eight of the 16 chief justices of India (CJIs) were
"definitely corrupt".
In
an affidavit filed Thursday, senior counsel Shanti Bhushan said that six of the
CJIs were "definitely honest" and he could not comment on the
remaining two judges.
The
senior counsel sought to be impleaded in a case in which his son Prashant
Bhushan is facing contempt proceedings.
Sixteen
CJIs that Shanti Bhushan has mentioned in his affidavit are: Justice Rangnath
Mishra, Justice K.N. Singh, Justice M.H. Kaina, Justice L.M. Sharma, Justice
M.N. Venkatachalliah, Justice A.M. Ahemadi, Justice J.S. Verma, Justice M.M.
Punchhi, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice S.P. Bharucha, Justice B.N. Kirpal,
Justice G.B. Pathak, Justice Rajendra Babu, Justice R.C. Lohati, Justice V.N.
Khare and Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
As
per reports, the Bhushan has submitted the names of the eight corrupt judges in
a sealed envelope to the apex court. Shanti Bhushan in his affidavit said that
two former CJIs had personally told him that their immediate predecessors and
immediate successors were corrupt judges. He said that the names of those four
CJIs were included in the list of eight corrupt CJIs.
The
plea, if accepted by the apex court is likely to open a can of worms and renew
calls for a total clean up in the Indian judiciary.
The
82-year-old lawyer and his advocate son Prashant Bhushan are well known for
their aggressive campaign against corruption in judiciary.
Prashant
Bhushan is facing a contempt of court proceeding for writing an article on
corruption in Indian judiciary and allegedly casting aspersions on CJI SH
Kapadia and his predecessor Justice KG Balakrishnan.
Earlier
on July 14, the Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the suo motu
contempt action initiated against advocate Prashant Bhushan for casting
aspersions on CJI Kapadia and his predecessor Justice KG Balakrishnan.
A
three-judge Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and H L Dattu asked
Bhushan to file his affidavit within 12 weeks and posted the matter for final
hearing to November 10.
"We
have upheld the maintainability of the notice and have decided to hear the
matter on merits," the Bench said.
Bhushan
had earlier questioned the maintainability of the notice issued by the apex
court on the contempt application moved by senior advocate Harish Salve for the
alleged contemptuous remarks in a news magazine. Salve had moved the
application while acting as the amicus curaie in the Forest Bench.
The
alleged contemnor advocate had in an interview to 'Tehelka' magazine made the
remarks against Justice Kapadia in 2009 as well as some other judges and
previous CJIs.
He
had alleged Justice Kapadia, being a member of the Forest Bench along with then
Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, should not have heard the matter relating to
Vedanta Sterlite Group as he held shares of the company.
Justice
Kapadia later recused himself from hearing a matter pertaining to the public
offer made by London-based Vedanta Resources to buy additional stake in iron
ore exporting firm Sesa Goa as he happens to be shareholder of a sister
company.
The
court had also issued a notice to Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka Tarun Tejpal which
had carried Bhushan's interview.
Senior
advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Bhushan, had earlier argued before the
Bench that it should not proceed with the contempt proceedings as there is a
serious risk that it will gain an impression that it is being issued for
suppressing the uncomfortable facts about the judiciary.
"If
the matter is heard, the outcome can bring much more tragedy," he had said
adding Salve's application was not maintainable and should be dismissed.
The
senior advocate had submitted that the power of the court to take suo motu
contempt action has to be used sparingly in the rarest of rare case.
For
Zee News’s Updates, follow us on Twitter , Facebook, Google+, Pinterest
First
Published: Friday, September 17, 2010, 09:08
CJI Altamas Kabir delivers 2 key
judgements, hours before demitting office
By
ET Bureau | 19 Jul, 2013, 05.29AM IST20 comments |Post a Comment
An unfazed and cheerful Kabir, though, quoted
from Gray’s Elegy “the path of glory leads but to the grave”.
An
unfazed and cheerful Kabir, though, quoted from Gray’s Elegy “the path of glory
leads but to the grave”.
ET
SPECIAL:Checkout Luxury Home Trends
NEW
DELHI: Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir delivered two key judgements, on
admissions and reservations in education, hours before demitting his office on
Thursday, which were soon mired in a controversy reminiscent of his
scandal-ridden short stint in office.
The
first ruling holds that there cannot be any relaxation at the super-speciality
level in AIIMS. Merit should be the only criteria. Activist-lawyer Prashant
Bhushan raised possible conflict of interest issues on the issue of the CJI
taking up the issue of reservations in AIIMS super-speciality posts, saying
that he was under treatment of the very same doctors.
The
second ruling says that Medical Council of India cannot introduce a single
national eligibility-cum-entrance test for all medical and BDS courses in the
country. This will have the effect of denuding states, state-run universities
and all medical colleges and institutions from admitting students to MBBS, BDS
and PG courses, according to their own procedures, beliefs and dispensations,
which is an integral part of their right to administer these institutions.
The
ruling, in favour of private institutions, created a different kind of
controversy. It was allegedly leaked to interested private educational
institutions way before it was supposed to be delivered. Lawyers said that the
ruling would allow these institutions to make merry by admitting their own
students for hefty capitation fees. A legal website even predicted the number
of pages and paras in the ruling and a possible dissent by one of the judges.
Justice
Anil R. Dave did dissent with the majority of Kabir and Justice Vikramjit Sen
as forecast. The CJI, accosted by media persons, would only say that he was
"shocked" by the circulation of the judgement even before it was
pronounced. An unfazed and cheerful Kabir, though, quoted from Gray's Elegy
"the path of glory leads but to the grave", saying he had done his
best, enjoyed his stint in office thoroughly and would now go back to
"Calcutta" and spend time with his granddaughter and wife.
Kabir's
short stint as CJI has been buffeted by controversies. He initially restored
oral mentioning by high-profile lawyers on urgent matters, opening a veritable
Pandora's Box of controversies. In his eagerness to please everybody, the
soft-spoken Kabir, quickly dispensed justice in urgent matters, prompting
lawyers to praise him as a "relief-giving judge" while condemning him
for passing orders without much thought.
List of the Chief Justices of India
|
No.
|
Name
|
Period of office
|
Days
|
Bar
|
|
|
1
|
January 26, 1950
|
November 6, 1951‡
|
649
|
||
|
2
|
November 7, 1951
|
January 3, 1954
|
788
|
||
|
3
|
January 4, 1954
|
December 22, 1954
|
352
|
||
|
4
|
December 23, 1954
|
January 31, 1956‡‡
|
404
|
||
|
5
|
February 1, 1956
|
September 30, 1959
|
1337
|
||
|
6
|
October 1, 1959
|
January 31, 1964
|
1583
|
||
|
7
|
February 1, 1964
|
March 15, 1966
|
773
|
||
|
8
|
March 16, 1966
|
June 29, 1966
|
105
|
||
|
9
|
June 30, 1966
|
April 11, 1967‡‡
|
285
|
||
|
10
|
April 12, 1967
|
February 24, 1968
|
318
|
||
|
11
|
February 25, 1968
|
December 16, 1970
|
1025
|
||
|
12
|
December 17, 1970
|
January 21, 1971
|
35
|
||
|
13
|
Jan 22, 1971
|
April 25, 1973
|
824
|
||
|
14
|
April 26, 1973
|
January 27, 1977
|
1372
|
||
|
15
|
January 28, 1977
|
February 21, 1978
|
389
|
||
|
16
|
February 22, 1978
|
July 11, 1985
|
26
|
||
|
17
|
July 12, 1985
|
December 20, 1986
|
526
|
||
|
18
|
December 21, 1986
|
June 18, 1989‡‡
|
940
|
||
|
19
|
June 19, 1989
|
December 17, 1989
|
181
|
||
|
20
|
December 18, 1989
|
September 25, 1990‡
|
281
|
||
|
21
|
September 26, 1990
|
November 24, 1991
|
424
|
||
|
22
|
November 25, 1991
|
December 12, 1991
|
17
|
||
|
23
|
December 13, 1991
|
November 17, 1992
|
340
|
||
|
24
|
Nov 18, 1992
|
Feb 11, 1993
|
85
|
||
|
25
|
February 12, 1993
|
October 24, 1994
|
619
|
||
|
26
|
October 25, 1994
|
March 24, 1997
|
881
|
||
|
27
|
March 25, 1997
|
January 17, 1998
|
298
|
||
|
28
|
January 18, 1998
|
October 9, 1998
|
264
|
||
|
29
|
October 10, 1998
|
January 11, 2001
|
824
|
||
|
30
|
January 11, 2001
|
May 6, 2002
|
480
|
||
|
31
|
May 6, 2002
|
November 8, 2002
|
186
|
||
|
32
|
November 8, 2002
|
December 19, 2002
|
41
|
||
|
33
|
Dec 19, 2002
|
May 2, 2004
|
500
|
||
|
34
|
May 2, 2004
|
June 1, 2004
|
30
|
||
|
35
|
June 1, 2004
|
November 1, 2005
|
518
|
||
|
36
|
November 1, 2005
|
January 13, 2007
|
438
|
||
|
37
|
January 13, 2007
|
May 11, 2010
|
1214
|
||
|
38
|
May 12, 2010
|
Sep 28, 2012
|
870
|
||
|
39
|
September 29, 2012
|
July 18, 2013
|
293
|
||
|
40
|
July 19, 2013
|
Incumbent
|
0
|
||
No comments:
Post a Comment