Why 4 judges of SC are rebel? This is the reason of dispute with the CJI..

By Vkeel Team


Four judges of the Supreme Court on Friday called a press conference and questioned the working style of Deepak Mishra, Chief Justice of India. Justice Chelmeshwar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph raised the question.

During the press conference, Justice Chelmeshwar said, “We have responsibility for the nation and the governance, due to which we are here. We spoke to the Chief Justice about the issues, but he does not listen to us. Democracy can not survive this way.”

Justice Chelmeshwar was apparently referring to the case of the Medical Council of India (MCI), in which a conflict was seen between two top Supreme Court judges in November last year. The speculation were made in November since the differences between Chief Justice Deepak Mishra and Justice Chelmeshwar that many other judges were not happy with the manner in which the Chief Justice was functioning.

What happened in the MCI case?

In the medical college bribe case, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court before the division bench of Justice Chelmeshwar on November 8. The petitioner CJAR (Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms) was seeking an independent inquiry by SIT in a case of CBI investigation. The case was a conspiracy of citation, in which allegation were made on top judges for taking a bribe for regularizing Black-listed Medical College.

The bench of Justices Chelmeshwar fixed November 10 for the hearing of the case. Then there was a petition in the court of Justice Chelmeshwar on 9th November. Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Dushyant Dev demanded immediate hearing in the matter. After which Justice K. Chelleshwar agreed to hear the case on next day, 9th November.

In order to hear the matter, the bench sent it to a constitutional body of five top judges. But before the Justice issued his written order in the Chelmeshwar case, a draft order came.

Lawyers In Bangalore


Disclaimer:

The information provided in the article is for general informational purposes only, and is not intended to constitute legal advice or to be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice. Furthermore, any information contained in the article is not guaranteed to be current, complete or accurate. If you require legal advice or representation, you should contact an attorney or law firm directly. We are not responsible for any damages resulting from any reliance on the content of this website.