[A pattern is clearly discernible. In fact, too difficult to miss it. Let us look into only a few landmark instances.
One: An exemplary penalty of Rs. 25 lakh was imposed on an NGO, Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), for filing a petition seeking a court-monitored independent probe into allegation of judges-middleman nexus in admissions to a medical college. The allegation involved the CJI himself. The CJI constitutes a five-judge bench, obviously of his choice, headed by him to get the petition allocated to a three-judge bench, constituted by him, annulling the earlier decision by an earlier two-judge bench decision to allocate the case to five-judge bench constituted of the five senior-most judges, barring the CJI, who's to be investigated as per the petition. This three-judge bench not only turns down the petition but also imposes an exemplary penalty. Leaving aside the merit of this judgement, the very propriety of the method followed obviously remains a big question mark. (Ref.: < https://thewire.in/214558/five-senior-judges-supreme-court-urged-set-probe-chief-justice/>, < http://indianexpress.com/article/india/college-bribe-case-three-judge-bench-of-sc-to-hear-kamini-jaiswal-petition-tomorrow-4933386/>, < http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/charges-against-cji-scurrilous-says-sc-bench/article20392431.ece> and < https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/med-scam-sc-slaps-25l-fine-on-ngo/articleshow/61888084.cms >.) Two: The four senior-most judges, barring the CJI, hold a joint press conference, in an unprecedented move, to openly air their deep dissatisfaction with the way the CJI is allocating "politically sensitive cases". The CJI, quite undeterred, constitutes a five-judge constitution bench, excluding any of the four senior-most judges, to hear a number of PILs, i.e. "politically sensitive cases". After a while, the CJI announces a roster system, to be prospectively implemented, allocating all the future PILs to himself. None of the four senior-most judges to be involved. Three: Justice Justice DY Chandrachud, a member of the constition bench constituted by the CJI to decide a number of "politically sensitive cases", decalres in the open court, while hearing the Aadhaar case: <<he does not mind "being called a capitalist or ideologically committed". "I am not a liberal judge. But I am a nationalist and committed to justice and the Constitution.>> (Ref.: < https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/dont-care-if-i-am-known-as-aadhaar-judge-says-justice-chandrachud-1807527 >.) Four: The case as regards the "mysterious death" of the CBI Judge BH Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh murder case involving the incumbent BJP President Amit Shah in whose favour the judge had been pressurised to deliver a judgement which he's refuse, the CJI scuttles the ongoing case in the Bombay High Court and eventually transfers to a bench headed by himself, and now declares that the court would go into the "death" and "death" only, not the surrounding circumstances which could point to the possible motives of the suspected murder. "Sohrabuddin Sheikh murder case" cannot even be referred to. While the way the incumbent Prime Minister of India cooked up a treason charge, and nothing less, in order to garner votes in a mid-sized state election, against the previous Vice President and Prime Minister of India, and no less, is so profoundly disturbing, the creeping subversions of the very institutions on which "democracy" rests is no less worrying.] I/II. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/cji-warns-loya-petitioners-not-hearing-sohrabuddin-loya-was-hearing-sohrabuddin-case-when-he-died-1160374-2018-02-02 CJI to Loya petitioners: Don't raise Sohrabuddin, the case Loya was hearing when he died IndiaToday.in New Delhi February 2, 2018 UPDATED 18:58 IST HIGHLIGHTS CJI Dipak Misra reprimanded the petitioners for raising the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. SC is hearing the politically-sensitive judge BH loya death case. Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014. Chief Justice Dipak Misra During the hearing in Supreme Court on the politically-sensitive Judge BH Loya death case, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra reprimanded the petitioners for raising the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, which Loya was hearing when he died. "This message should go out loud and clear. We are only concerned about death of Judge Loya. We are not on the other case at all," CJI Misra told the petitioners - Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla, and Maharashtra-based journalist BS Lone. Loya had died of cardiac arrest in Nagpur on December 1, 2014, when he had gone to attend the wedding of a colleague's daughter. At the time of his mysterious death, he was presiding over a special CBI court hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, in which BJP president Amit Shah was one of the accused. Shah was later discharged. In the Sohrabuddin case, apart from Shah, Rajasthan Home Minister Gulabchand Kataria, Rajasthan-based businessman Vimal Patni, former Gujarat Police chief PC Pande, Additional Director General of Police Geeta Johri, and Gujarat police officers Abhay Chudasama and NK Amin, were also listed as accused. Later, special judge MB Gosavi, who took over the trial of the case, discharged Shah and some other accused. On January 22 this year, during the last hearing in the Loya case, the Supreme Court had dubbed as "serious" the issues raised in the pleas, but had castigated senior lawyer Dushyant Dave for casting aspersions on Amit Shah in the case. The Supreme Court had also taken umbrage at senior advocate Indira Jaising for inferring a possible gagging of the media in the Loya case, after which she had withdrawn her statement. The issue of Loya's death had come under the spotlight in November last year after media reports quoting his sister had fuelled suspicion about the circumstances surrounding it and its link to the Sohrabuddin case. But Loya's son had on January 14 said in Mumbai that his father had died of natural causes. Justice Loya case caught in political tug of war? II. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wont-go-into-other-aspects-of-judge-loyas-death-supreme-court/article22636199.ece Won’t go into other aspects of judge Loya’s death: Supreme Court Krishnadas Rajagopal NEW DELHI: , FEBRUARY 02, 2018 19:58 IST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 02, 2018 19:58 IST A view of the Supreme Court of India. File CJI Dipak Misra rejects plea to order notice to BJP president Amit Shah. The Supreme Court on Friday made a “loud and clear” message that that it was concerned only with the death of special CBI judge B H Loya, and would not go into other aspects including BJP president Shah’s discharge in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case. The apex court was responding to senior advocate Dushyant Dave when he urged the Supreme Court to not fail its own judiciary, saying it will be a “great disservice” to the judicial brethren if the court does not seriously take the “discrepancies” in the statements about the death of CBI judge B.H. Loya. Loya who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case in which BJP president Amit Shah was discharged later on. “Who will protect our judges?” Mr. Dave asked the three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on behalf of the Bombay Lawyers Association. The association, along with others like activist Tehseen Poonawala, has moved the Supreme Court for an independent probe into the death of Mr. Loya on December 1, 2014 while he was in Nagpur to attend a wedding. He was accompanied by colleagues, two of whom are Bombay High Court judges now. Dave cites "discrepancies” Quoting from a Maharashtra police intelligence report, Mr. Dave accused four judges and other witnesses of "parrot-lying". He pointed to an alleged lack of initiative to inform Loya's family and how his body was reportedly sent home “alone” in an ambulance. “They said Loya was brought dead to the hospital, yet the hospital bills show he had undergone diet consultancy, neurosurgery, critical care. All this for a dead man? They did neurosurgery on a dead body? They say he was taken ill in his bed at the guest house. Yet he was wearing brown colour full shirt, blue jeans and belt. His wife is called at 5 am, yet the time of death is recorded as 6.15 am. His security was curiously withdrawn a few days before his death,” Mr. Dave submitted. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on the Bench, tried to reason that “individuals react differently in the face of calamity. Somebody may in hindsight say they should have acted in a different way. But that (the judges' conduct) should not determine the truth or whether Loya's death was natural or not”. Mr. Dave said the apex court should consider, rather than “throw out at the threshold”, three pivotal aspects in this case — the circumstances of Loya's death, why Mr. Shah was discharged from the case and why the CBI appealed the discharged of the police officers involved in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case and not that of Mr. Shah. One of the petitioners, Gunarathan Satavarte from the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Bar Association, said he has made Mr. Shah a party in his petition concerning Loya's death and a notice should be issued to the political leader. To this, Chief Justice Misra reacted that “we are only concerned with the death of Loya and not other matters. This is made loud and clear”. Seniors advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Harish Salve, for Maharshtra government, termed the allegations levelled by Mr. Dave as "absolutely incorrect" and an effort to “malign the judiciary”. When Mr. Dave wondered aloud why the State was so reluctant to an independent probe into the death of a judge, Mr. Rohatgi responded that the “State has done a discreet investigation. All the judges who were with Loya were asked. Are going to post-mortem an incident that happened three years ago?” Mr. Dave said Loya's 19-year-old son was recently “paraded before the media by a law firm”. “Call the family to your chambers and ask them,” Mr. Dave urged the judges. Senior advocate V. Giri, for Mr. Poonawala, submitted the State should place the entire records on the Loya case before the court for it to decide whether a probe was required or not. Senior advocate Indira Jaising said the State should place the original documents as photocopies show “over-writing”. When Mr. Dave pointed out to how Mr. Loya's predecessor J.T. Utpal was suddenly transferred despite an Supreme Court direction that one judge should hear the entire case, Mr. Rohatgi retorted with “are we here to talk about the death of a judge or the decision of the Bombay High Court's administrative committee to transfer Judge Utpal?” The hearing will resume on February 5. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
