This is the same case that was referred to a constitution bench of five most senior judges by justices J. Chelameswar and Abdul Nazeer on 9 November.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) will decide Tuesday on whether a petition seeking a judicial probe into allegations that attempts were made to bribe SC judges can even be entertained.
A bench comprising justices R.K. Agrawal, Arun Mishra and A.M. Khanwilkar reserved orders on the maintainability of a petition filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal after a stormy one-and-a-half-hour hearing.
This is the same case that was referred to a constitution bench of five most senior judges by justices J. Chelameswar and Abdul Nazeer on 9 November. Instead, Chief Justice Dipak Misra hurriedly set up a separate five-judge bench on 10 November, which effectively recalled Justice Chelameswar’s order and sent the case to a three-judge bench he picked.
The constitution bench had also reiterated that only the chief justice has the prerogative to set up benches and allocate cases to judges. Incidentally, all three judges who heard the case Monday were also part of the constitution bench set up by the CJI on 10 November.
Senior advocates Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan appearing for petitioner Kamini Jaiswal, argued that an independent probe under the supervision of a former CJI must be ordered by the court.
“The ruling of the constitution bench is totally illegal. Justice Chelameswar’s order is in consonance with Article 142 of the Constitution, according to which a Supreme Court judge can pass any order to do complete justice,” Shanti Bhushan argued.
They added that the ongoing probe by the CBI will raise questions on the independence of the judiciary. The CBI has lodged an FIR suggesting a conspiracy involving a former judge of the Orrisa High Court to bribe judges of the apex court to influence ruling in case. The case concerns a Lucknow-based medical college seeking licence for this academic year.
Chief Justice Dipak Misra had presided over the bench that heard the case in question.
“Anyone in the corridors of this court can say anything about judges and that can be in an FIR. How can aspersions be cast on the chief justice of India based on an FIR, which doesn’t even name him?” Justice Misra asked.
“The petition does not name any judge but the CBI could investigate conduct of a judge who heard the case at some point,” Prashant Bhushan clarified.
Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal said that the petition has hurt the institution. “The only way the damage can be repaired is by withdrawing the petition,” he said. The AG clarified that his views were independent and do not represent the views of the government.
The court repeatedly asked Prashant Bhushan if Jaiswal’s decision to file an identical plea before another bench amounted to “forum shopping” and “scandalising the court”.
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Judicial Reforms (CJAR), a non-profit in which both Prashant Bhushan and Jaiswal are office-bearers, had already filed a similar plea and it was pending before another bench of the apex court.
However, the Supreme Court Bar Association asked the court to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioners and their lawyers. Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the government, also said that the petitions by CJAR and Jaiswal were filed to “scandalise” the court.