Two advocates Monday wrote to the Bar Council of India criticising it for its support to CJI Ranjan Gogoi and called the hearing a ‘travesty of justice’.
Utsav Bains said he was approached to organise a press conference to 'frame' Ranjan Gogoi, and represent the ex-SC staffer who made allegations against him.
Supreme Court convenes a special bench to counter the harassment charges against the CJI, asks media to exercise restraint in reporting the 'unverified charges'.
A bench headed by CJI Rajan Gogoi rejected RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav's bail plea a day after the CBI strongly opposed it claiming he would conduct political activities.
The Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi conferred senior designations on lawyers who had applied for the same on 13 November last year.
Indian judiciary has a corrosive imbalance between the bar and the bench. Those who supervise the district judiciary do so without the lived experience that is essential for meaningful reform.
November exports to the US saw 10% growth from the previous month. Overall, in the first 8 months this fiscal, the merchandise exports to the US touched has touched $59bn.
Of the total package, $649 million will be utilised for additional hardware, software, and support services, and the remaining for Major Defence Equipment (MDE).
Don’t blame misfortune. This is colossal incompetence and insensitivity. So bad, heads would have rolled even in the old PSU-era Indian Airlines and Air India.
Now that Utsav Bains has come up to clear the mist few Supreme Court Lawyers will have a sleepless night. What does the complainant demands is a separate issue. It has to be seen what is the mechanism in Constitution of India to handle the issue. Except impeachment there is no other mechanism.
Milan Deep Singh and all businessmen lawyers have an axe of their own to grind by using this situation as an opportunity to harness as much benefits as possible.
Our present society is full of such people who would jump the guns by arriving at a conclusion without even commencement of inquiry and great irony it is, they call themselves lawyers……
All such people who behave legally in a way, a lawyer should not rather reduce themselves into a full fledged businessmen Rather than calling themselves lawyers.
They are also decendents of those who opposed the despotism thrust upon society in the name of emergency, the most.
For all such Spineless Creatures we have nothing else but Pity.
Please refrain from using public forum for your own benefit as it Exposes You Badly.
If you do so in private, you would reap the benefits without any such unwarranted exposure.
Publish it the way it has been written or discard it completely.
Thanks.
I am really surprised with Mr Milan Deep Singh’s comment. How can a lawyer say all of this on a public forum? If he or anyone else knows more than what we know, Mr Singh and others have an obligation to tell us. If not, they have to learn to respect that law is equal for all of us. If someone has made an allegation by writing to the judicial system and has made it public, do we not owe him or her a hearing and an investigation. How many individuals would have the courage a file a false allegation and go public against the most important judicial position in the country? Mr Venugopal is the same person who wants one set of laws for us (read privacy) and one for the politician. How does one trust someone when he or she says two different things on the same issue – one concerns an ordinary citizen and the mighty politician? Am I getting it wrong or is that what one should expect in New India? I had no intention to comment on this issue, but Mr Singh’s response is not the one I expected from a lawyer unless that individual is himself or herself taking position.
I am amazed how all these legal luminaries have ignored the fundamental constitutional provision. No committee or bench can investigate or decide on allegations against the President or CGI. This authority is vested only with the Parliament of India. What happened in the SC bench proceedings was neither a hearing nor any specific order was passed, except that an appeal was made to the media to use their conscience while expressing opinion on the matter. By no stretch of imagination it can be claimed that the CJI has passed verdict in his favour. He has only used the forum, to explain his side to his colleagues as well as to the general public, since no other forum is available to him for his self-defence in order to counter the adverse publicity caused by the allegation, which according to him is false and fabricated. The matter doesn’t end here. If the complainant is aggrieved and wants to take the matter to its logical conclusion, the only option available to her is to convince 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs of Lok Sabha so that impeachment process can be initiated. There is no other recourse, so long as the CJI occupies his post. Alternatively, she can wait for him to retire. There is no other way, as the charges are against the CJI. Furthermore, I must add that if the charges are found to be unsubstantiated and false, there should be very heavy punishment for this dastardly act.
How does Shri Milan Deep Singh arrive at such a sweeping conclusion ? It is the anti thesis of justice and fair play. So many laws, including on dowry, are in fact consciously skewed in favour of women, with experience suggesting that they are sometimes misused. The skew is a conscious decision. It acknowledges the fact that there is a power differential between the sexes, women require special protection. That is what the Me Too movement has also brought to the fore. However, to claim that a woman cannot face inappropriate behaviour because the alleged perpetrator is far too eminent to do something like this goes against experience and common sense. Those giving the honorable CJI a blank cheque are actually doing him a disfavour. He will come out with his reputation burnished if a credible enquiry process finds him innocent.
Now that Utsav Bains has come up to clear the mist few Supreme Court Lawyers will have a sleepless night. What does the complainant demands is a separate issue. It has to be seen what is the mechanism in Constitution of India to handle the issue. Except impeachment there is no other mechanism.
Milan Deep Singh and all businessmen lawyers have an axe of their own to grind by using this situation as an opportunity to harness as much benefits as possible.
Our present society is full of such people who would jump the guns by arriving at a conclusion without even commencement of inquiry and great irony it is, they call themselves lawyers……
All such people who behave legally in a way, a lawyer should not rather reduce themselves into a full fledged businessmen Rather than calling themselves lawyers.
They are also decendents of those who opposed the despotism thrust upon society in the name of emergency, the most.
For all such Spineless Creatures we have nothing else but Pity.
Please refrain from using public forum for your own benefit as it Exposes You Badly.
If you do so in private, you would reap the benefits without any such unwarranted exposure.
Publish it the way it has been written or discard it completely.
Thanks.
I am really surprised with Mr Milan Deep Singh’s comment. How can a lawyer say all of this on a public forum? If he or anyone else knows more than what we know, Mr Singh and others have an obligation to tell us. If not, they have to learn to respect that law is equal for all of us. If someone has made an allegation by writing to the judicial system and has made it public, do we not owe him or her a hearing and an investigation. How many individuals would have the courage a file a false allegation and go public against the most important judicial position in the country? Mr Venugopal is the same person who wants one set of laws for us (read privacy) and one for the politician. How does one trust someone when he or she says two different things on the same issue – one concerns an ordinary citizen and the mighty politician? Am I getting it wrong or is that what one should expect in New India? I had no intention to comment on this issue, but Mr Singh’s response is not the one I expected from a lawyer unless that individual is himself or herself taking position.
I am amazed how all these legal luminaries have ignored the fundamental constitutional provision. No committee or bench can investigate or decide on allegations against the President or CGI. This authority is vested only with the Parliament of India. What happened in the SC bench proceedings was neither a hearing nor any specific order was passed, except that an appeal was made to the media to use their conscience while expressing opinion on the matter. By no stretch of imagination it can be claimed that the CJI has passed verdict in his favour. He has only used the forum, to explain his side to his colleagues as well as to the general public, since no other forum is available to him for his self-defence in order to counter the adverse publicity caused by the allegation, which according to him is false and fabricated. The matter doesn’t end here. If the complainant is aggrieved and wants to take the matter to its logical conclusion, the only option available to her is to convince 50 MPs of Rajya Sabha or 100 MPs of Lok Sabha so that impeachment process can be initiated. There is no other recourse, so long as the CJI occupies his post. Alternatively, she can wait for him to retire. There is no other way, as the charges are against the CJI. Furthermore, I must add that if the charges are found to be unsubstantiated and false, there should be very heavy punishment for this dastardly act.
How does Shri Milan Deep Singh arrive at such a sweeping conclusion ? It is the anti thesis of justice and fair play. So many laws, including on dowry, are in fact consciously skewed in favour of women, with experience suggesting that they are sometimes misused. The skew is a conscious decision. It acknowledges the fact that there is a power differential between the sexes, women require special protection. That is what the Me Too movement has also brought to the fore. However, to claim that a woman cannot face inappropriate behaviour because the alleged perpetrator is far too eminent to do something like this goes against experience and common sense. Those giving the honorable CJI a blank cheque are actually doing him a disfavour. He will come out with his reputation burnished if a credible enquiry process finds him innocent.