- Login | Register
- Current Issue
- Most Read
- Back Issues
Arrested former Calcutta High Court judge C S Karnan was taken to a state-run hospital this evening when he complained of
Beleaguered Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif will appear before the Joint Investigation Team probing the high-profile
RJD president Lalu Prasad today appeared in a special CBI court here in connection with a multi-crore fodder scam case.
The Income Tax Department has issued fresh summons to RJD chief Lalu Prasad's MP daughter Misa Bharti in connection with i
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed an FIR against Director (IT) of the CBSE Antriksh Johri, the represent
Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh and the other accused in the Disproportionate Assets (DA) case, moved the
The lawyers representing Calcutta High Court judge C.S Karnan have claimed that a representation has been made to the pres
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a plea seeking an audit of the accounts of India Against Corruption (IAC), an anti-co
The Supreme Court on Monday rapped Calcutta High Court judge Justice C.S. Karnan to repeatedly filing pleas to recall his
The Supreme Court has directed the Union Home Ministry to "secure and ensure" the presence of embattled businessman Vijay
L'affaire Dinakaran is getting murkier by the day. After 76 Rajya Sabha members signed the impeachment petition which was admitted by Vice President Hamid Ansari, some Congress Dalit MPs criticised the move, arguing that Justice Dinakaran was being persecuted for being a Dalit. Uttar Pradesh chief minister, Mayawati, has predictably joined forces. Meanwhile, there had been news that Justice Dinakaran the chief justice of Karnataka high court will not henceforth exercise any judicial functions till it is notified otherwise.
D V Shylendrakumar, a judge in the High Court of Karnataka, writes in the New Indian Express, that on learning that Justice Dinakaran was however still exercising his powers as the Chief Justice on the administrative side, he "was of the sincere opinion that all judges of the high court, should sit together, discuss the matter and take a collective decision to prevail upon the chief justice to refrain from discharging any administrative duties also".
He, therefore, wrote to R B Budihal, registrar general of the High Court of Karnataka in Bangalore, "to circulate a letter amongst his colleagues apprising them of the meeting of the judges to take place at 11:00 AM on Saturday, December 19, to take a decision".
I learnt in the evening from the registrar general that the chief justice before whom the matter was placed for orders has declined permission for the meeting. Now, this development is the cause for my present communication. This kind of response from the chief justice, to a proposal to hold a meeting of all judges of the high court to discuss an issue involving the conduct of the chief justice himself and is definitely not a matter over which the chief justice himself should take a decision, has only confirmed my worst fears that the chief justice may even now continue to abuse and misuse his powers (including the power to recommend the names of persons to be appointed as judges of the high court after eliciting the views of his colleagues in the collegium) even when he is no more discharging his duties as chief justice of the high court.
In fact grace and propriety requires that a file containing a proposal of this nature, should have been directed to be placed before any other judge of the high court for orders, if at all an order is needed. Well grace, propriety and good conduct are definitely not the strong points of our chief justice. I will work out a way but the point here is that the people of the state and the country should be aware of such developments and also react to the same.
No one can and should sit as a judge in his own cause — even the chief justice of a high court.
Meanwhile, Vinay Sitapati argues in the Indian Express that Justice Dinakaran has been denied the procedural right to be heard, and this denial is the result of the higher judiciary's own choice to be insulated from scrutiny. That insulation, he argues, cuts both ways:
Precisely because judges don’t open up to questioning, they deny themselves the power to brush off the mud slung at them. When you refuse to enact clear-cut procedures to try judges, you have no armour from the rumours, innuendos and allegations in the court of public opinion. When you are not answerable to anyone, you find yourself unable to answer back.