Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

Home / Latest News / CJI Ranjan Gogoi rejects petition for inquiry into Justice Joseph’s comments, says newspaper reports can’t determine institution’s credibility

CJI Ranjan Gogoi rejects petition for inquiry into Justice Joseph’s comments, says newspaper reports can’t determine institution’s credibility

December 6, 2018 Latest News Leave a comment 336 Views

December 06, 2018:

On Thursday, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi declined urgent listing of a PIL seeking an inquiry into the comments made by retired SC judge, Justice Kurian Joseph in a recent interview given to TOI.

PIL seeking inquiry into Justice Kurian Joseph's comment rejected by CJI — PIL seeking inquiry into Justice Kurian Joseph’s comment rejected by CJI

Justice Joseph had claimed that former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra was being controlled by external influence, and that this had a bearing on the listing of matters having political significance.

The lawyer who mentioned the matter said that it is a question of credibility of the institution and sought urgent listing.

However, CJI Ranjan Gogoi made his point clear.

He said declining the request, “Credibility of the institution is not determined by newspaper reports, but by people who man it.”

In the interview with TOI, Justice Joseph reveals the following reasons why the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court held a press conference in January this year.

He said, “There were several instances of external influences on the working of the Supreme Court relating to allocation of cases to benches headed by select judges and appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and high courts. Someone from outside was controlling the CJI, that is what we felt. So we met him, asked him, wrote to him to maintain independence and majesty of the Supreme Court. When all attempts failed, we decided to hold a press conference.”

Facebook Comments

Hindu Hindu

...as an eminent lawyer you ought to know that your action tantamount to, under Section B, sub-section G.VIX, read along with I.P.C. (A) XI (B), notwithstanding... TOI

Demonitisation Diaries 1 pic by sify

TOI

Alligator vs Litigator

Soaring of Oil Prices pic by indiaone

Tax Reforms by Hindu [caption id="attachment_97477" align="alignleft" width="621"]

UIDAI Leaks[/caption]

Women Safety: State of Affairs pic by mangal

TOI

State of Two Nations pic by sandeep

TOI

Hindu

Hindu

Lawyers Bearing the Burden Literally pic by OMG

Delivery Boy by Satish Hindu

Auto Driver thrashed for no fault, source oneindia

State of Judiciary by Sandeep Adhwaryu of TOI TOI

Demonitisation Diaries by sify

Demonitisation Diaries 2 pic by sify

Hindu

Hindu

Hindu

Acheche Din pic by sify [caption id="attachment_97474" align="alignleft" width="621"]

Donald Trump’s immigration ban[/caption]

Belts are for Dogs [caption id="attachment_97467" align="alignleft" width="621"]

Humour with Latest Laws[/caption] TOI

TOI

Hindu

Hindu

Hindu

TOI

Hindu

Hindu

If India takes One Step, we will take Two ...................by Satish Pic by Hindu

Women Empowerment and Sports

Four Pillars of Democracy by Satish Hindu

TOI

Time to straighten up pic by TOI [caption id="attachment_97462" align="alignleft" width="524"]

Painting India Saffron[/caption]

Hindu Hindu

Let Justice Be

TOI

IBN IBN

Hindu

TOI

Job Hazards

Hindu

TOI

Humour @ Latest Laws: Achhey Din

Missing the Point pic by english blog

Tags CJI Ranjan Gogoi Dipak Misra Justice Kurian Joseph Supreme Court

Check Also

President promulgates Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2019; Read Gazette

February 21, 2019: On Tuesday, the Union Cabinet approved the promulgation of an Ordinance, namely “the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2019 to bring in necessary official amendments in the Indian Medical Council (Amendment) Bill, 2018. The proposal will ...

RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ORS. Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Supreme Court holds the Chairpersons of Reliance Communications Ltd., Reliance Telecom Ltd., and Reliance Infratel Ltd. have breached the undertaking given to the Apex Court and the related orders. The Bench orders the R.Com. Chairman and others to purge the contempt by paying ? 453 crore to Ericsson in four weeks. The bench states if the contemnors fail to make the payments within the specified period, they will undergo a jail term of three months. Court also directs Reliance Communication, Reliance Telecommunication and Reliance Infratel to deposit ?1 crore each to the Apex Court’s registry in four weeks or the Chairman of these companies will have to go an additional jail term of one month. Court clarifies that ?118 crore which has already been deposited by Reliance Group in the Apex Court’s registry, be disbursed to Ericsson within a week. Contempt Petitions are disposed off.

RF Nariman, Vineet Saran, JJ

20/2/2019 View judgement PDF

SMT. SUNITA DEVI AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 109 read with Section 34. The petitioners filed this writ petition for constitution of a court-monitored investigation/SIT to re-investigate the aforesaid cases pertaining to FIR Nos. 221 of 2001 and 228 of 2002 registered at Police Station Pilakhwa, Uttar Pradesh. SC by Order dated 8.2.2018 rejected the prayer for re-investigation of the case pertaining to FIR No. 228 of 2002. This Court directed constitution of a SIT for re-investigation of FIR No.221 of 2001. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the report of the SIT and the objections filed by the petitioners to the said report, we are of the view that the CBI has to look into the report of the SIT and take a decision in the matter. Writ Petition disposed off.

A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ

20/2/2019 View judgement PDF

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA Vs M/S. AARHAM SOFTRONICS

Finance Act, 2003, Finance Act, 1991 SC observes, in case substantial expansion is carried out as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by such an undertaking or enterprise, within the aforesaid period of 10 years, the said previous year in which the substantial expansion is undertaken would become ‘initial assessment year’, and from that assessment year the assessee shall been entitled to 100% deductions of the profits and gains. Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6). In view of the aforesaid, SC affirms the judgment of the High Court on this issue and dismiss all these appeals of the Revenue. Appeals are allowed.

A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ

20/2/2019 View judgement PDF

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. SURESH

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 304 Part II. SC observes, awarding of just and adequate punishment to the wrong doer in case of proven crime remains a part of duty of the Court. The punishment to be awarded in a case has to be commensurate with the gravity of crime as also with the relevant facts and attending circumstances. SC finds that the respondent is convicted of the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. The punishment so awarded by the Trial Court had itself been leaning towards leniency, essentially in view of the fact that the respondent was 26 years of age at the time of the incident in question. However, the High Court further proceeded to reduce the punishment to the period already undergone (i.e., 3 months and 21 days) while concluding that “no useful purpose would be served in sending appellant back to jail”. Appeal is allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ

20/2/2019 View judgement PDF

TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Vs STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. & ORS

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Supreme Court holds that the State Government passing an order under Section 18 of the Water Act, not being the subject matter of any appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, cannot be “judicially reviewed” by the NGT. The National Green Tribunal has no general power of judicial review akin to that vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India possessed by the High Courts of this country. The Supreme Court clarifies that no appeal was provided against orders made under Section 18 of the Water Act, and the attempt to bring the Tribunal by the backdoor, as it is done in the present case will, therefore, have to be rejected. Appeals disposed off.

R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, JJ

18/2/2019 View judgement PDF

KRIPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Indian Penal Code, Section 302 IPC. SC holds, prosecution has proved the case against the present accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt that the injury on the head of the deceased which was attributed to the accused appellant could in itself be sufficient to cause death and this is what has been considered by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in appeal. The possibility of over-implication of co-accused Ram Lal, Arjun Singh and Sultan Singh would not in any manner rule out the case of the present appellant and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt holding him guilty. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated but what is required is that judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct. Appeal is dismissed.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

EZAJHUSSAIN SABDARHUSSAIN & ANR. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Indian Penal Code, Section 302. SC observed, there cannot be a universal rule in laying down the principles of existence of common intention of prior meeting or meetings with pre-arranged plan. It has to be proved either from the conduct or circumstances of any incriminating facts which is missing in the instant case. The High Court has committed a manifest error in holding the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for participating in the commission of crime. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges filed against them by giving them benefit of doubt. Appeal is allowed.

A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners through this PIL desires transparency and full disclosure of information depicting : (a) definite criteria for such appointments, (b) and such criteria should be made public in advance. SC observes, the petitioners are right in their submissions that there have been undue delays in filling up of these vacancies. We expect that the vacancies shall be filled up, in future, well in time. Supreme Court lays down directions keeping in view the salient purpose for which RTI Act. The Court observes, RTI Act is enacted not only to sub-serve and ensure freedom of speech. On proper implementation, it has the potential to bring about good governance which is an integral part of any vibrant democracy. Attaining good governance is also one of the visions of the Constitution. Appeal is disposed off.

AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

THE STATE OF GUJARAT Vs PWD AND FOREST EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.

Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009. SC observes, the respondent workers who have been working on daily wage basis cannot be given casual leave which is more than the entitlement extended to regular Government employees. We accept the plea of the appellant that Government Resolution dated October 17, 1988 which provides for 14 days casual leave including 2 days of voluntary/ optional leave is the result of inadvertent transaction error. The casual leave for daily wagers cannot be more than the regular Government employees. We, therefore, hold that the respondents employees shall be entitled to 12 days of casual leave and 2 days of voluntary leave/restricted leave. Appeal is allowed.

A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN Vs AHSANUL GHANI

Civil Procedure Code, Section 100. SC observes, the plaintiff-appellant has failed to aver and prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Trial Court made a rather assumptive observation that he had proved such readiness and willingness. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought leave to amend the plaint only when the ground to that effect was taken in the first appeal by the defendant. SC states, the late attempt to improve upon the pleadings of the plaint at the appellate stage was only an exercise in futility in the present case. The High Court has rightly pointed out that no substantial question of law as regards the correctness of the order refusing the application for amendment was formulated. Appeal is dismissed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ

15/2/2019 View judgement PDF

Latest CaseLaw

CJI Ranjan Gogoi rejects petition for inquiry into Justice Joseph’s comments, says newspaper reports can’t determine institution’s credibility

On Thursday, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi declined urgent listing of a PIL seeking an inquiry into the comments made by retired SC judge, Justice Kurian Joseph in a recent interview given to TOI.

You May Also Like

Check Also

Leave a Reply Cancel reply