CBSE name correction |
| Our Special Correspondent |
| New Delhi: Students can now seek corrections to their name or date of birth as mentioned in their Central Board of Secondary Education mark sheet within five years of the declaration of results, compared to the previous one-year window. "Limitation of cases of correction in candidate, mother and father name/correction in date of birth has been revised," a board notification says. "Revised time limit will be 5 years from date of declaration of result and it will be applicable to all cases after Class X/XII 2015 examination onwards."
In 2015, the board had introduced the one-year window. Before that, it did not impose any time limit, and hundreds applied years after passing their exams.
|
Saturday, November 11, 2017
Pune varsity’s gold medal values versatility, but in vegetarians, teetotallers
Savitribai Phule Pune University, which has been awarding the gold medal since 2006, said a decision to review the ‘vegetarians and non-alcoholics’ criteria will be taken with the sponsors of the gold medal
The Pune University campus. (HT File Photo)
Should an Indian university award gold medals to meritorious students with the eligibility criteria that they must be a vegetarian and not consume alcohol?
This is precisely what has been done by the Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU), which has been awarding the gold medal in question since 2006.
The SPPU in an official statement to HT said: “We do not discriminate between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The university has no view in who should eat what. As far as the medal being given to vegetarians and non-alcoholics, a decision to review the criteria will be taken with the sponsors of the medal.”
The existence of such pre-conditions accompanying a gold medal became a talking point when the SPPU recently invited applications for the medal from meritorious post-graduate students from the non-science streams for the academic year 2016-17.
Instituted in the name of yoga guru, Yog Maharshi Ramchandra Gopal Shelar, alias Shelar Mama, the SPPU invited applications from affiliated colleges and departments for this medal. First issued in 2006, the circular, in its terms and conditions states that the student applying should be “vegetarian and non-alcoholic”.
Read more
Besides the vegetarian and teetotaller criterion, the circular states that the selected student should also “believe in Indian culture and tradition, and practice all these values in his daily life and should be versatile in activities like dance, singing, oratory and theatre.” Students practicing yoga, pranayam and meditation will be given preference, it adds.
As per the university tradition, the medal will be given at SPPU’s convocation ceremony, scheduled for December. The medal is awarded every year, alternately to the highest scoring post-graduate student from the science and non-science streams. This year, it will be given to a student from the non-science stream.
When contacted, Arvind Shaligram, registrar, SPPU, said the university has been awarding this gold medal since 2006. He said the terms and conditions for the medal were set by the trust which instituted the medal. “The university has nothing to do with this,” he added.
When asked whether it was appropriate for the university to institute and award medals with such conditions, he said the guidelines were framed by the academic council, which may have found them acceptable in 2006 when the original circular was issued. “If the rules and regulations have to be changed now, it has to be done by the academic council,” he noted.
Should an Indian university award gold medals to meritorious students with the eligibility criteria that they must be a vegetarian and not consume alcohol?
This is precisely what has been done by the Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU), which has been awarding the gold medal in question since 2006.
The SPPU in an official statement to HT said: “We do not discriminate between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The university has no view in who should eat what. As far as the medal being given to vegetarians and non-alcoholics, a decision to review the criteria will be taken with the sponsors of the medal.”
The existence of such pre-conditions accompanying a gold medal became a talking point when the SPPU recently invited applications for the medal from meritorious post-graduate students from the non-science streams for the academic year 2016-17.
Instituted in the name of yoga guru, Yog Maharshi Ramchandra Gopal Shelar, alias Shelar Mama, the SPPU invited applications from affiliated colleges and departments for this medal. First issued in 2006, the circular, in its terms and conditions states that the student applying should be “vegetarian and non-alcoholic”.
Read more
Besides the vegetarian and teetotaller criterion, the circular states that the selected student should also “believe in Indian culture and tradition, and practice all these values in his daily life and should be versatile in activities like dance, singing, oratory and theatre.” Students practicing yoga, pranayam and meditation will be given preference, it adds.
As per the university tradition, the medal will be given at SPPU’s convocation ceremony, scheduled for December. The medal is awarded every year, alternately to the highest scoring post-graduate student from the science and non-science streams. This year, it will be given to a student from the non-science stream.
When contacted, Arvind Shaligram, registrar, SPPU, said the university has been awarding this gold medal since 2006. He said the terms and conditions for the medal were set by the trust which instituted the medal. “The university has nothing to do with this,” he added.
When asked whether it was appropriate for the university to institute and award medals with such conditions, he said the guidelines were framed by the academic council, which may have found them acceptable in 2006 when the original circular was issued. “If the rules and regulations have to be changed now, it has to be done by the academic council,” he noted.
Lucknow Medical College bribe case: Stormy scenes in SC, CJI says he decides who hears which case
5-judge bench overturns 2-judge bench order, spares Bhushan of contempt saying ‘restraint is our power’
Written by ANANTHAKRISHNAN G | New Delhi | Updated: November 11, 2017 4:58 am
5-judge bench overturns 2-judge bench order, spares Bhushan of contempt saying ‘restraint is our power’
Written by ANANTHAKRISHNAN G | New Delhi | Updated: November 11, 2017 4:58 am
The Supreme Court of India (File Photo)
High drama and acrimonious exchanges were witnessed in the Supreme Court Friday when it struck down an order by a two-judge bench the previous day that a matter of alleged judicial corruption, involving a blacklisted Lucknow medical college, should be heard by a Constitution Bench comprising the five most senior judges of the apex court.
Ruling that the Chief Justice of India alone had the power to allocate work to judges in the Supreme Court and constitute benches, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, cited propriety and unanimously overturned Thursday’s decision by the bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer. Any order which runs contrary to the finding “cannot be binding”, the Constitution Bench ruled.
The bench, which also included Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, cited a 1997 judgment which held that the Chief Justice of the High Court was the master of the court roster. The same principle, the judges said, would extend to the CJI on the functioning of the Supreme Court.
Taking exception to the order of the two-judge bench, the Constitution Bench, in its order, said: “Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute benches. Needless to say, neither a two-judge bench nor a three-judge bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.”
Thursday’s order came on a petition by NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) which demanded an SIT probe into the alleged corruption case involving former Orissa High Court judge I M Quddusi. He was among six arrested on September 21 by the CBI which claimed they were involved in deals to try and secure favourable orders from courts, including Supreme Court, for the Lucknow-based Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences which had been placed on a government blacklist.
In its FIR, the CBI claimed that promoters of the medical college, one of 46 barred by the government from admitting students for two years, had approached Quddusi who had promised relief from courts, including Supreme Court, with bribes to influential people.
The five-judge Constitution Bench said the CJAR petition will be listed before an appropriate bench for hearing after two weeks.
The bench declined to gag the media from reporting the proceedings where there were heated exchanges, saying it stood for the freedom of speech and freedom of press. “I believe, and all of us collectively believe, in the freedom of speech and freedom of the media as long as they are within their limits,” CJI Misra said, rejecting a plea that the press be restrained from reporting whatever was transpiring in the court room.
Earlier in the day, a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, which heard the CJAR plea shortly before lunch, directed that the same “be placed before the CJI for passing appropriate orders for listing this matter”. The bench also allowed the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to implead in the matter.
Acting on this order, the CJI constituted the five-judge bench on short notice and decided to take up the matter during the day. Initially, a notice pinned on the board outside the CJI’s court announced that a seven-judge bench would hear the matter but a revised notice said it would be listed before a five-judge bench.
Tempers ran high in the court room during the hearing when CJAR counsel Prashant Bhushan demanded that the CJI recuse himself from the matter since a bench headed by him in the past had passed the order in the Lucknow medical college matter. But the CJI refused and Bhushan stormed out midway through the proceedings, saying he was not being allowed to speak.
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General P S Narsimha read out the court’s order in the case of the Prasad Education Trust that runs the Lucknow college. Commenting on it, CJI Misra said the court had not given any relief to the college and had left it to the Medical Council of India to take a call.
The CJI, who seemed visibly upset, stopped Bhushan when he tried to intervene: “No, Mr Bhushan, you cannot comment on our orders.”
As the hearing proceeded, Justice Arun Mishra asked “if someone says CJI should not hear a matter, will it not amount to contempt of court”.
At this, Bhushan said: “I am still asking the CJI to recuse from the case. The FIR is against your lordship.” The bench told him to read out the FIR. Bhushan did so but could not cite the CJI’s name in the FIR to back his allegation.
At this, the CJI said: “What FIR against me? It is nonsense. There is not a word in the FIR naming me. Read our orders first. I feel sorry. You are liable for contempt now.”
Bhushan dared the bench to “issue contempt notice now”. But the CJI said: “You are not worthy of contempt.”
Bhushan continued. “I am requesting the CJI, don’t hear this matter. It will bring the court into disrepute.”
ASG Narsimha said “it is not for the party to decide who is to recuse, who is not”. He said “constitution of bench is within the executive powers of CJI and a judicial order cannot replace it”.
“If this goes on, institution cannot function”, the CJI remarked, adding “I cannot understand the logic of the CJI not being allowed to be the master of the roster.”
The CJI also referred to the order of Justice Sikri and observed that it had followed propriety. “But I have seen yesterday’s (Thursday’s) order, may be in another case. How does this institution function,” he said.
Bhushan then told the court that during Thursday’s proceedings, a note was placed before Justices Chelameswar and Nazeer, purportedly from the office of the CJI, which was recorded in their order.
At this, the CJI said it was his note and was placed before the bench of Justice Chelameswar by an officer of the Registry.
SCBA president R S Suri and secretary Gaurav Bhatia joined issue with Bhushan, saying his action amounted to contempt per se. “He is casting aspersions on the entire institution, not just any individual,” Bhatia said.
The bench, however, refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Bhushan with Justice Arun Mishra observing “restraint is our power”.
Rejecting Bhushan’s arguments that the contents of the FIR pointed to a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Mishra said that was impossible since it was established law that any such FIR will require the sanction of the CJI.
“Are we going to going to put our judiciary at the disposal of an SI (Sub Inspector)… It is inconceivable and not permissible,” he said. The bench said that Bhushan’s allegations were not reflected in the FIR and were only rumours.
Bhushan called the proceedings as “totally extraordinary” and “very, very unusual”.
Acting on a plea filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal who had raised the same prayer as the CJAR petition for an SIT probe, Justices Chelameswar and Nazeer had on Thursday directed that the matter be heard by a Constitution Bench made up of the five most senior judges.
On Friday, the Constitution Bench questioned Bhushan why a second petition was filed in the matter on Thursday when the CJAR plea, which was first heard by Justice Chelameswar’s bench on Wednesday, had already been listed for Friday.
Bhushan tried to reply but was constantly interrupted by other members of SCBA. For nearly 40 minutes, lawyers opposing his contentions spoke. Bhushan then asked the court if it would not hear him. As the interruptions continued, he stormed out of the court room, saying the court was free to pass any order it wished if it was not willing to hear him. As jostling began, security personnel escorted him out.
Later, in a tweet, Bhushan alleged that the “CJI presided over a hand-picked bench to override yesterday’s order referring this case to top 5 judges. This despite having a direct conflict of interest.”
High drama and acrimonious exchanges were witnessed in the Supreme Court Friday when it struck down an order by a two-judge bench the previous day that a matter of alleged judicial corruption, involving a blacklisted Lucknow medical college, should be heard by a Constitution Bench comprising the five most senior judges of the apex court.
Ruling that the Chief Justice of India alone had the power to allocate work to judges in the Supreme Court and constitute benches, a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, cited propriety and unanimously overturned Thursday’s decision by the bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer. Any order which runs contrary to the finding “cannot be binding”, the Constitution Bench ruled.
The bench, which also included Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, cited a 1997 judgment which held that the Chief Justice of the High Court was the master of the court roster. The same principle, the judges said, would extend to the CJI on the functioning of the Supreme Court.
Taking exception to the order of the two-judge bench, the Constitution Bench, in its order, said: “Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute benches. Needless to say, neither a two-judge bench nor a three-judge bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.”
Thursday’s order came on a petition by NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) which demanded an SIT probe into the alleged corruption case involving former Orissa High Court judge I M Quddusi. He was among six arrested on September 21 by the CBI which claimed they were involved in deals to try and secure favourable orders from courts, including Supreme Court, for the Lucknow-based Prasad Institute of Medical Sciences which had been placed on a government blacklist.
In its FIR, the CBI claimed that promoters of the medical college, one of 46 barred by the government from admitting students for two years, had approached Quddusi who had promised relief from courts, including Supreme Court, with bribes to influential people.
The five-judge Constitution Bench said the CJAR petition will be listed before an appropriate bench for hearing after two weeks.
The bench declined to gag the media from reporting the proceedings where there were heated exchanges, saying it stood for the freedom of speech and freedom of press. “I believe, and all of us collectively believe, in the freedom of speech and freedom of the media as long as they are within their limits,” CJI Misra said, rejecting a plea that the press be restrained from reporting whatever was transpiring in the court room.
Earlier in the day, a bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, which heard the CJAR plea shortly before lunch, directed that the same “be placed before the CJI for passing appropriate orders for listing this matter”. The bench also allowed the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to implead in the matter.
Acting on this order, the CJI constituted the five-judge bench on short notice and decided to take up the matter during the day. Initially, a notice pinned on the board outside the CJI’s court announced that a seven-judge bench would hear the matter but a revised notice said it would be listed before a five-judge bench.
Tempers ran high in the court room during the hearing when CJAR counsel Prashant Bhushan demanded that the CJI recuse himself from the matter since a bench headed by him in the past had passed the order in the Lucknow medical college matter. But the CJI refused and Bhushan stormed out midway through the proceedings, saying he was not being allowed to speak.
At the outset, Additional Solicitor General P S Narsimha read out the court’s order in the case of the Prasad Education Trust that runs the Lucknow college. Commenting on it, CJI Misra said the court had not given any relief to the college and had left it to the Medical Council of India to take a call.
The CJI, who seemed visibly upset, stopped Bhushan when he tried to intervene: “No, Mr Bhushan, you cannot comment on our orders.”
As the hearing proceeded, Justice Arun Mishra asked “if someone says CJI should not hear a matter, will it not amount to contempt of court”.
At this, Bhushan said: “I am still asking the CJI to recuse from the case. The FIR is against your lordship.” The bench told him to read out the FIR. Bhushan did so but could not cite the CJI’s name in the FIR to back his allegation.
At this, the CJI said: “What FIR against me? It is nonsense. There is not a word in the FIR naming me. Read our orders first. I feel sorry. You are liable for contempt now.”
Bhushan dared the bench to “issue contempt notice now”. But the CJI said: “You are not worthy of contempt.”
Bhushan continued. “I am requesting the CJI, don’t hear this matter. It will bring the court into disrepute.”
ASG Narsimha said “it is not for the party to decide who is to recuse, who is not”. He said “constitution of bench is within the executive powers of CJI and a judicial order cannot replace it”.
“If this goes on, institution cannot function”, the CJI remarked, adding “I cannot understand the logic of the CJI not being allowed to be the master of the roster.”
The CJI also referred to the order of Justice Sikri and observed that it had followed propriety. “But I have seen yesterday’s (Thursday’s) order, may be in another case. How does this institution function,” he said.
Bhushan then told the court that during Thursday’s proceedings, a note was placed before Justices Chelameswar and Nazeer, purportedly from the office of the CJI, which was recorded in their order.
At this, the CJI said it was his note and was placed before the bench of Justice Chelameswar by an officer of the Registry.
SCBA president R S Suri and secretary Gaurav Bhatia joined issue with Bhushan, saying his action amounted to contempt per se. “He is casting aspersions on the entire institution, not just any individual,” Bhatia said.
The bench, however, refused to initiate contempt proceedings against Bhushan with Justice Arun Mishra observing “restraint is our power”.
Rejecting Bhushan’s arguments that the contents of the FIR pointed to a judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Mishra said that was impossible since it was established law that any such FIR will require the sanction of the CJI.
“Are we going to going to put our judiciary at the disposal of an SI (Sub Inspector)… It is inconceivable and not permissible,” he said. The bench said that Bhushan’s allegations were not reflected in the FIR and were only rumours.
Bhushan called the proceedings as “totally extraordinary” and “very, very unusual”.
Acting on a plea filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal who had raised the same prayer as the CJAR petition for an SIT probe, Justices Chelameswar and Nazeer had on Thursday directed that the matter be heard by a Constitution Bench made up of the five most senior judges.
On Friday, the Constitution Bench questioned Bhushan why a second petition was filed in the matter on Thursday when the CJAR plea, which was first heard by Justice Chelameswar’s bench on Wednesday, had already been listed for Friday.
Bhushan tried to reply but was constantly interrupted by other members of SCBA. For nearly 40 minutes, lawyers opposing his contentions spoke. Bhushan then asked the court if it would not hear him. As the interruptions continued, he stormed out of the court room, saying the court was free to pass any order it wished if it was not willing to hear him. As jostling began, security personnel escorted him out.
Later, in a tweet, Bhushan alleged that the “CJI presided over a hand-picked bench to override yesterday’s order referring this case to top 5 judges. This despite having a direct conflict of interest.”
Another action-packed wet spell to begin in Chennai on Sunday
By Express News Service | Published: 10th November 2017 08:29 AM |
CHENNAI: The second bout of heavy downpour this monsoon is round the corner as weather models predict an action-packed week starting this Sunday night. The Regional Meteorological Centre (RMC), Chennai, in its five-day outlook, has already put out a heavy rainfall warning for coastal Tamil Nadu.
The new low pressure formed in the Bay of Bengal, which is seen as a remnant of past typhoon Damrey, is on course to the Andamans and the Tamil Nadu coast. Currently, the system is over the Southeast Bay of Bengal with associated cyclonic circulation extending upto 4.5 km above mean sea level.
S Balachandran, director, Area Cyclone Warning Centre, told Express that clouds were seen travelling to the Tamil Nadu coast. “We are tracking this system closely. We have to wait and monitor. There are a lot of factors like how far the low pressure is travelling and reorganising and how close it is coming towards us. In another day or two, there will be clarity. Light to moderate rain is expected over the next two days,” he said.
Weather expert Pradeep John said it was a broad low pressure and that means it is very elongated. “The active spell for most of north Tamil Nadu will start from Sunday and some bands over the coastal regions will arrive by Saturday itself. Again, Chennai will face most of the action with its location perfectly placed.”
To a query, John said the IMD models were not predicting that the low pressure would intensify into a cyclone, but some of the American models were forecasting a cyclone formation.
'Veg only' criteria for gold medal in Pune University, Shiv Sena says diktat should be withdrawn
By PTI | Published: 10th November 2017 10:01 PM |
Pune University (Photo : Wikimedia commons)
PUNE: Students who are vegetarian and teetotaller will be eligible for gold medals to be given at a Pune university's convocation by a trust run by a yoga guru, says the institution, drawing flak from some quarters even though the varsity said it does not differentiate anyone on the basis of food habits.
The Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU) in a circular, informed affiliated colleges and departments about a gold medal award, constituted in the name of Yog Maharshi Ramchandra Gopal Shelar, alias Shelar Mama for non-science streams postgraduate students for the academic year 2016-17.
The medal is sponsored by the trust and family members of Shelar Mama.
According to the circular, the varsity cited one of the criteria that the student should be "vegetarian and teetotaller".
However, the varsity has claimed that the circular is old and re-issued every year with no change in the content.
The circular said the gold medal is given to a student who has completed post graduation in science and non-science stream with merit on alternate years. This year, the gold medal is given for non-science stream.
The circular said that besides the "vegan and tee- totaller" criterion, the student should believe in Indian culture, tradition and practise all these values in his daily life and should be versatile in activities like dance, singing, eloquence and theatre.
"Student who practises yoga and pranayama and meditation will be given preference," reads the circular.
Arvind Shaligram, registrar of SPPU, said the content in the circular is old as the gold medal was constituted in the name of Shelar Mama in 2006.
"Since the gold medal is given every year, the circular is re-issued every year and the content of the circular remains same and only date changes.
"As far as setting up the terms and conditions in the circular, the varsity has nothing to do with this as the terms and conditions in the circular were not drafted by the university. All these terms and conditions were drafted and given to varsity by the trust of yog maharshi Shelarmama then, who then wanted to constitute the gold medal in the name of the Yog Maharshi," he clarified.
Meanwhile, the varsity late this evening said it will have discussions with the family members of Shelarmama over the criterion related to diet.
In a statement SPPU said that it does not differentiate students on the basis of the food habits.
Reacting to the development, Yuva Sena leader Aaditya Thackeray wondered if it was a varsity or a restaurant.
"This diktat should be withdrawn. Focus on studies instead. Rather than bothering about who eats what, pay attention to how students will get jobs," Aaditya said.
"I agree that the criterion should specify that a student should not have any vices. But 'only vegetarian' criterion is incomprehensible. Are you running a university or have you opened a restaurant," he said.
"Give a gold medal to those who issued this diktat and dismiss them," he added.
UGC asks deemed-to-be universities not to use varsity tag
Prakash Kumar, DH News Service, New Delhi Nov 11 2017, 2:34 IST
The University Grants Commission (UGC) has directed a total of 14 deemed-to-be universities including Jagadguru Sri Shivarathreeswara University and Manipal Academy of Higher Education not to use the word "University," threatening with action in case of non-compliance of its directive.
The Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research, BLDE University, Vijaypur, and Swami Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsthana are among the list of deemed-to-be-universities in Karnataka whom the commission has issued its directive in this regard.
The higher education regulator has also issued similar directive to 109 deemed-to-be-universities operating in different parts of the country.
This comes following a recent Supreme Court verdict. The apex court, while hearing a petition on deemed-to-be-universities offering correspondence course in engineering and technology, directed the government to restrain deemed-to-be-universities from using the word 'University' within one month from the date of judgement.
"The institutions are hereby directed to restrain from using the word 'University' with its name failing which necessary action would be initiated in accordance with the UGC (institutions deemed-to-be-universities) Regulations, 2016. Instead, the Institution may mention the word "Deemed to be University" within parenthesis," the UGC said in its directive.
For the deemed-to-be-universities which were notified by the central government with the word "University" with their names, the higher education regulator said they can send it a proposal for an alternative name without using the word 'University.'
"Such deemed-to-be-universities can also apply for an alternative name with the HRD Ministry," UGC Secretary P K Thakur said.
The Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bombay; Symbiosis International University, Pune: Homi Bhabha National Institute, Bombay; Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram; and Vellore Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu are among the deemed-to-be universities which have to comply with the UGC directive.
Judges bribery scandal: SC wonders how its 2-judge bench usurped powers of CJI
PTI
PublishedNov 10, 2017, 9:25 pm IST
Aspersions were also cast on CJI, prompting him to hurriedly set up a 5-judge bench to scrutinise decision of bench of Justice Chelameswar.
A two-judge Supreme Court bench set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear a plea relating to a graft case in which a retired judge of the Orissa High Court is an accused. (File photo)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday wondered how could two of its judges usurp the power of the Chief Justice of India to set up a bench, while some lawyers alleged that an NGO and an advocate were indulging in "forum shopping".
The issue at hand was Thursday's order of the two-judge bench of Justice J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer setting up a five-judge constitution bench of senior most judges of the apex court to hear a plea relating to a graft case in which a retired judge of the Orissa High Court Justice Ishrat Masroor Quddusi is an accused.
Aspersions were also cast on Chief Justice Dipak Misra, prompting him to hurriedly constitute a five-judge bench to scrutinise the decision of the bench of Justice Chelameswar.
"Have you ever seen a two-judge bench directing that a bench will be constituted like this? A two-judge bench cannot refer a matter like this to a constitution bench. It will be my discretion," the CJI said.
"How can power of the CJI be overridden? No bench can direct constitution of a constitution bench like this," the bench, also comprising Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, said.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner NGO, argued that the CJI should recuse himself from hearing the case as his name has allegedly figured in the CBI's FIR, Additional Solicitor General PS Narsimha said no party can decide who should recuse or who should hear a matter.
Some advocates present in the courtroom referred to Justice Chelameswar's order and that it has been directed that the five-judge bench would comprise of the five senior-most judges of the apex court.
Justice Arun Mishra reacted: "Is that not a bad reflection on us that only five senior judges should hear the matter. Are we not competent?"
"You are doubting the integrity of everybody in the system", Justice Mishra, who is not among the top five senior judges, said.
Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association including its President R S Suri, vice-president Ajit Sinha, Secretary Gaurav Bhatia and several senior advocates including Ashok Bhan and Aman Sinha countered Bhushan's submissions and said that strong action should be taken against any attempt to "browbeat" the judges.
"It cannot be presumed if he (Bhushan) says that it (FIR) is against any judge of any court. If somebody is presuming something, we cannot help it. The court cannot function in this manner," the bench observed.
The bench also said the FIR cannot be said to be against any judge.
"Constitution has a procedure and that procedure has to be protected. We are not here to protect any individual but the Constitution. Mr Bhushan, not like this. You must take back your statement," the bench said.
Justice Arun Mishra referred to Bhushan's argument that the CJI should recuse from hearing the case and said, "Mr Bhushan, your comment was not appropriate. For God's sake, do not say like this".
During the charged-up hearing, Suri also questioned the manner in which the petition was mentioned yesterday before a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar at 10.30 am and was taken up for hearing by the bench at 12.45 pm itself.
He said another similar plea was slated to come up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice A K Sikri today but Bhushan mentioned an identical plea yesterday and an order was passed for setting up of a five-judge bench to hear the case.
"It is definitely forum shopping. This is something which is happening and which is not permissible. They (petitioner) talk about integrity of the institution but they are doing this," Suri said.
When Bhushan said he would clarify what he intended to say before the court, the bench shot back, "few things are happening in this court. You see, my lord (CJI) is not speaking because he is the CJI".
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday wondered how could two of its judges usurp the power of the Chief Justice of India to set up a bench, while some lawyers alleged that an NGO and an advocate were indulging in "forum shopping".
The issue at hand was Thursday's order of the two-judge bench of Justice J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer setting up a five-judge constitution bench of senior most judges of the apex court to hear a plea relating to a graft case in which a retired judge of the Orissa High Court Justice Ishrat Masroor Quddusi is an accused.
Aspersions were also cast on Chief Justice Dipak Misra, prompting him to hurriedly constitute a five-judge bench to scrutinise the decision of the bench of Justice Chelameswar.
"Have you ever seen a two-judge bench directing that a bench will be constituted like this? A two-judge bench cannot refer a matter like this to a constitution bench. It will be my discretion," the CJI said.
"How can power of the CJI be overridden? No bench can direct constitution of a constitution bench like this," the bench, also comprising Justices R K Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar, said.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner NGO, argued that the CJI should recuse himself from hearing the case as his name has allegedly figured in the CBI's FIR, Additional Solicitor General PS Narsimha said no party can decide who should recuse or who should hear a matter.
Some advocates present in the courtroom referred to Justice Chelameswar's order and that it has been directed that the five-judge bench would comprise of the five senior-most judges of the apex court.
Justice Arun Mishra reacted: "Is that not a bad reflection on us that only five senior judges should hear the matter. Are we not competent?"
"You are doubting the integrity of everybody in the system", Justice Mishra, who is not among the top five senior judges, said.
Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association including its President R S Suri, vice-president Ajit Sinha, Secretary Gaurav Bhatia and several senior advocates including Ashok Bhan and Aman Sinha countered Bhushan's submissions and said that strong action should be taken against any attempt to "browbeat" the judges.
"It cannot be presumed if he (Bhushan) says that it (FIR) is against any judge of any court. If somebody is presuming something, we cannot help it. The court cannot function in this manner," the bench observed.
The bench also said the FIR cannot be said to be against any judge.
"Constitution has a procedure and that procedure has to be protected. We are not here to protect any individual but the Constitution. Mr Bhushan, not like this. You must take back your statement," the bench said.
Justice Arun Mishra referred to Bhushan's argument that the CJI should recuse from hearing the case and said, "Mr Bhushan, your comment was not appropriate. For God's sake, do not say like this".
During the charged-up hearing, Suri also questioned the manner in which the petition was mentioned yesterday before a bench headed by Justice Chelameswar at 10.30 am and was taken up for hearing by the bench at 12.45 pm itself.
He said another similar plea was slated to come up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice A K Sikri today but Bhushan mentioned an identical plea yesterday and an order was passed for setting up of a five-judge bench to hear the case.
"It is definitely forum shopping. This is something which is happening and which is not permissible. They (petitioner) talk about integrity of the institution but they are doing this," Suri said.
When Bhushan said he would clarify what he intended to say before the court, the bench shot back, "few things are happening in this court. You see, my lord (CJI) is not speaking because he is the CJI".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Vijay Govt: நிலம் வாங்கப் போறவங்களுக்கு ஜாக்பாட்! இனி பட்டா தேடி வரும்! தமிழக அரசு குட்நியூஸ்!
Vijay Govt: நிலம் வாங்கப் போறவங்களுக்கு ஜாக்பாட்! இனி பட்டா தேடி வரும்! தமிழக அரசு குட்நியூஸ்! Vijay Govt: நிலம் வாங்கப் போறவங்களுக்கு தமிழக...
