Civil society members have written to the SC asking to cancel the in-house inquiry after the complainant against CJI Gogoi refused to participate in it.
CJI Gogoi took part in the proceedings a day after the complainant refused to participate, saying she felt ‘frightened’ of the in-house committee’s atmosphere.
Lawyer M.L. Sharma, known for poorly-drafted petitions, is seeking prosecution against senior Supreme Court lawyers for their attempt to 'destabilise' judiciary.
SC lawyer Prashant Bhushan claimed Utsav Bains met Ranjan Gogoi twice before filing affidavit in SC in which he claimed larger conspiracy to frame CJI.
SEBI probe concluded that purported loans and fund transfers were paid back in full and did not amount to deceptive market practices or unreported related party transactions.
A common thread runs through the memories of soldiers of the 1965 war—ingenuity, courage and camaraderie that withstood an apparently technologically superior foe.
Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport.
If this enquiry is to be stopped, what is the alternative? It is true that this committee has no constitutional sanctity, inasmuch as the judiciary cannot adjudicate itself. This power is vested with the Parliament in terms of Article 124 and Judges Enquiry Act, 1968. Still this committee was formed to satisfy the public opinion. However, it is a moot point how far the judiciary should cave in to meet the demands of the complanant. It seems that nothing short of conviction will satisfy her, no matter the what is the conclusion of the committee. Under such circumstances, the lady may be left to choose other options: (1) Request Parliamentarians to initiate impeachment process or (2) wait for the CJ to retire.
These are the same from Ghar Wapsi gang, once again raising their ugliest head. They are scared of the present Govt. that has political will. They failed with Modi, now they are keeping the guns on the shoulder of the CJI with the same objective. These parasites are fearing their fate. They must disturb the nation’s atmosphere, hook or crook.
This is a personal charge against the CJI. Judiciary is a perpetual entity. People will come and people will go. CJI is one of them. The honourable Supreme Court didn’t live up to the expectations of the people by giving a wrong impression that the CJI and judiciary are inseparable. The alleged larger crime to destabilise the judiciary is totally different issue and this allegation on the CJI is totally different.
“The Chief Justice of India should refrain from transacting official duties and responsibilities until the completion of the inquiry.” What’s going on? SC must act and stop its politicization by vested interests. If law permits, these 333 activists must be taken to task for interfering in SC.
This is uncharted territory for the apex court. It requires the collective wisdom of 22 judges to determine the way forward. In the normal course, the Committee could conclude the proceedings and, based on the material before it, give a finding that the complaint is false, no further action is warranted. We have the highest respect for the Justices, would have no reason to question the merit of their findings and conclusions. However, that may not bring satisfactory closure. If hundreds of eminent citizens are voicing their disquiet, deeper thought is required.
Why don’t you publish the names of those who signed the letter? We will then make up our minds on the motives and legitimacy of the letter. If it is the usual tukde tukde gang that signed it, then we know that the letter is not even worth the paper it was written on.
RJ, you are shy to even reveal your full name, but here is the 334th, yours truly. I too would sign it if someone showed me where to sign.
My logic is simple:
1) take the 3 March FIR against this woman into consideration, according to which this woman CONNED a man of 50000 rupees, and also THREATENED him that she will implicate him in a FALSE CASE if he persisted about his money. These three coordinates, mentioned in bold above, define this woman for me.
2) she showed her complaint to TWENTY TWO judges of the Supreme Court, and none of them helped her. Not one or two, but 22. All of them, very senior people, whose life is spent in disbursing justice. Did they all belong to tukde tukde gang?
3) she cribbed about the panel of judges when the hearing of her complaint began. On her demand, 2 out of 3 judges were ladies. She couldn’t answer their questions, and said they were intimidating him. Read my point 1) above. Is a person who is aggressive and fraudulent enough to intimidate others likely to get intimidated herself, unless she is not caught telling a lie?
If this enquiry is to be stopped, what is the alternative? It is true that this committee has no constitutional sanctity, inasmuch as the judiciary cannot adjudicate itself. This power is vested with the Parliament in terms of Article 124 and Judges Enquiry Act, 1968. Still this committee was formed to satisfy the public opinion. However, it is a moot point how far the judiciary should cave in to meet the demands of the complanant. It seems that nothing short of conviction will satisfy her, no matter the what is the conclusion of the committee. Under such circumstances, the lady may be left to choose other options: (1) Request Parliamentarians to initiate impeachment process or (2) wait for the CJ to retire.
These are the same from Ghar Wapsi gang, once again raising their ugliest head. They are scared of the present Govt. that has political will. They failed with Modi, now they are keeping the guns on the shoulder of the CJI with the same objective. These parasites are fearing their fate. They must disturb the nation’s atmosphere, hook or crook.
Why does not Mr. R. J. Whoever he is first tell us his name before asking for names of others.
This is a personal charge against the CJI. Judiciary is a perpetual entity. People will come and people will go. CJI is one of them. The honourable Supreme Court didn’t live up to the expectations of the people by giving a wrong impression that the CJI and judiciary are inseparable. The alleged larger crime to destabilise the judiciary is totally different issue and this allegation on the CJI is totally different.
“The Chief Justice of India should refrain from transacting official duties and responsibilities until the completion of the inquiry.” What’s going on? SC must act and stop its politicization by vested interests. If law permits, these 333 activists must be taken to task for interfering in SC.
This is uncharted territory for the apex court. It requires the collective wisdom of 22 judges to determine the way forward. In the normal course, the Committee could conclude the proceedings and, based on the material before it, give a finding that the complaint is false, no further action is warranted. We have the highest respect for the Justices, would have no reason to question the merit of their findings and conclusions. However, that may not bring satisfactory closure. If hundreds of eminent citizens are voicing their disquiet, deeper thought is required.
Why don’t you publish the names of those who signed the letter? We will then make up our minds on the motives and legitimacy of the letter. If it is the usual tukde tukde gang that signed it, then we know that the letter is not even worth the paper it was written on.
RJ, you are shy to even reveal your full name, but here is the 334th, yours truly. I too would sign it if someone showed me where to sign.
My logic is simple:
1) take the 3 March FIR against this woman into consideration, according to which this woman CONNED a man of 50000 rupees, and also THREATENED him that she will implicate him in a FALSE CASE if he persisted about his money. These three coordinates, mentioned in bold above, define this woman for me.
2) she showed her complaint to TWENTY TWO judges of the Supreme Court, and none of them helped her. Not one or two, but 22. All of them, very senior people, whose life is spent in disbursing justice. Did they all belong to tukde tukde gang?
3) she cribbed about the panel of judges when the hearing of her complaint began. On her demand, 2 out of 3 judges were ladies. She couldn’t answer their questions, and said they were intimidating him. Read my point 1) above. Is a person who is aggressive and fraudulent enough to intimidate others likely to get intimidated herself, unless she is not caught telling a lie?