English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

UP Medical College Scam: Chaos reigns in SC as CJI dissolves Justice Chelameswar-selected bench

Published

on

UP Medical College Scam: Chaos reigns in SC as CJI dissolves Justice Chelameswar-selected bench

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The simmering power struggle at the Supreme Court came to the surface on Friday (November 10) when Chief Justice Dipak Misra made it clear that it is the CJI who is the master of roster of the Supreme Court. The apex court also made it clear that neither a two-judge, nor a three-judge bench can direct the CJI to constitute any specific bench (constitution bench).

The case was about an allegation that there has been an attempt to bribe judges of the Supreme Court related to registration of an Uttar Pradesh medical college. A petition in this regard had been filed by advocate Kamini Jaiswal. Another petition, on the same lines, had been filed by advocate Prashant Bhushan.

It may be recalled that the Centre had earlier de-registered 46 medical colleges for substandard facilities. Custodians of the Prasad Education Trust in Uttar Pradesh approached the Supreme Court for relief after they were debarred in August 2017 from admitting students for academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

Allegations have thereafter been made regarding this bribery possibility.

In the meantime, a Supreme Court bench comprising the CJI, Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Amitava Roy who were hearing the matter, stayed the Medical Council of India’s notification and allowed five medical colleges to admit students. The FIR filed by the CBI on September 19 under the Prevention of Corruption Act alleges that these five colleges then approached former Orissa and Allahabad HC judge, Justice (retd) Ishrat Masroor Quddusi, to supposedly fix the matter. First, they approached (allegedly on the advice of Justice Quddusi) the Allahabad HC, where they got a favourable order.

After that, Prasad Trust’s functionaries approached the Supreme Court and Justice Quddusi allegedly introduced them to Biswanath Agrawal, a resident of Bhubaneswar, Odisha, who claimed he was close to “senior public officials” and would “settle the matter in the apex court”.

On September 20, Quddusi and five others were arrested by the CBI and presented before Tis Hazari Court the next day. Judge Manoj Jain of the special court handling CBI cases sent Quddusi and the others to custody after the CBI said their custodial interrogation was required to unearth the “larger nexus” in the alleged medical college scam.

JUSTICE CHELAMESWAR’S DECISION

While hearing Jaiswal’s petition, Justices Chelameswar and Abdul Nazeer decided that the case would be heard by a five-judge constitution bench on Monday (November 13). The judges selected for that bench were Justices Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph and AK Sikri.

This order was passed by Justices Chelameswar and Nazeer, after hearing senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who pressed for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe allegations. Chief Justice Dipak Misra was not included on this bench, just because—as Dave pointed out—the other similar case was being heard by the CJI.

This seemed a flawed decision. The roster of the apex court, including the formation of constitution or special benches is entirely the CJI’s discretion. The No. 2 (officially) of the court will not have this power.

That was what the CJI made clear on Friday. In dealing with the petition of Bhushan, the CJI too formed a constitution bench that did not include judges from the Justice Chelameswar-constituted bench. The CJI’s bench includes the CJI and Justices RK Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar.

The Justice Chelamshwar-constituted constitution bench, therefore, stands dissolved.

TEMPERS FRAYED

On Friday, however, tempers soared. Advocate Bhushan raised his voice while replying to the CJI. Though he apologized later, he had to be removed by marshals.

Bhushan, screaming at the top of his voice, said: “CJI should not be the member of this bench. He has corruption charges against him.”

A visibly angered CJI replied: “You are not even worth contempt.”

At that SCBA president Sodi said: “The bench can’t bring any favourable order under threat of terrorism.”

Justice Agrawal then told the SCBA president: “This is the duty of bar to take care of lawyers’ conduct. This court is not duty bound to look into lawyers conduct. We are here not here to protect any.”

Justice Amitava Roy got angry and told Bhushan: “Please don’t raise your voice. You are supporting the cause of accusing a sitting Chief Justice on his face.” Another lawyer said: “People are laughing at us.” There was a suggestion that both matters (related) be listed before a full court.

Talk was on, when Bhushan lost his temper and the altercation grew. Lawyers from Prashant Bhushan’s side pleaded: “Please don’t print this in the media. Please don’t allow any media person to publish this on news channels.”

Said the CJI: “There will be no anarchy or chaos. There cannot be an order directing a matter to be placed before a particular bench. If any such order has been passed by any bench, that will not hold the field… So that takes care of Monday’s bench.”

That was the end of the Justice Chelameswar-constituted constitutional bench.

There was trouble among lawyers too. One lawyer was heard saying: “Take our oral contempt petition. He (Prashant Bhushan) pushed us (while he was being escorted by the Marshalls of the court).”

Advocate Kamini Jaiswal said: “This order (of the CJI) may be placed before the other bench. In the last month there have been six matters which were before other bench taken by CJI.”

To that the CJI replied: “Yes. That is my prerogative. The MoP matter ought not to have been heard on the judicial side (hence he took it up and ordered as he did).”

The CJI finally ordered: “The matter be placed before the CJI to be placed before appropriate bench. List after two weeks.”

PS Narasimha asked: “Can anyone say, ‘I know someone and can get it done’.  Can this be the basis for contempt?”

Justice Arun Mishra said: “It cannot be read against any judge. Can there be any FIR against a judge?”

Justice Khanwilkar said: “Are we going to put our judiciary at the disposal of an SI?”

There was a suggestion by RS Suri that contempt may be issued against all concerned, including Ms Kamini Jaiswal, Prashant Bhushan, etc.

To that the CJI said: “That’s on contempt. We are on judicial propriety.”

A senior advocate observed: “These petitions have caused a perception that the Supreme Court is worse than a political establishment.”

Asked the CJI: “What is your suggestion?”

Several voices in court said: “Contempt”.

Bhan said: “They must explain their conduct.”

CJI, asking Bhushan, who was back: “You say ‘I lost my temper’. You can lose your temper. We cannot.”

CJI asked the opinions of senior advocates present in court. Advocate RP Bhat said: “This is contempt per se. Spoiling the image of the court.”

Things rested at that.

Source: India Legal[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Ajit Pawar dismisses speculation on Supriya Sule joining BJP

Ajit Pawar has dismissed speculation about Supriya Sule joining the BJP, calling such rumours exaggerated and stressing that his focus remains on elections and development.

Published

on

Ajit Pawar

Amid renewed political speculation around Nationalist Congress Party–Sharad Pawar (NCP-SP) leader Supriya Sule’s future, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar on Monday dismissed rumours of her joining the BJP, stating that he is “not an astrologer” and prefers to focus on governance and electoral outcomes rather than conjecture.

The remarks came after Sule publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for sending all-party delegations abroad following Operation Sindoor, triggering fresh political chatter in Maharashtra’s volatile landscape.

Ajit Pawar rejects political speculation

Responding to questions from the media, Ajit Pawar said speculative interpretations are often exaggerated and unnecessarily amplified.

“I am not an astrologer. Such speculative questions often become breaking news without reason. My focus is on development until January 15,” he said, seeking to put an end to the rumours.

On whether there is any possibility of the two factions of the Nationalist Congress Party coming together, Pawar said the immediate priority is electoral success.

“At present, our top priority is winning the elections. We are working with full effort to ensure a positive outcome,” he said.

On NCP reunification and family ties

Addressing broader questions on a possible reunification between the NCP and NCP-SP, Pawar used a familial analogy, suggesting that unity cannot be ruled out.

“We are one family. In every family, people come together during moments of happiness and sorrow. If family members decide to stand together, there is nothing wrong in that,” he said.

However, he did not indicate any concrete move or timeline for such a reunion.

Thackeray brothers’ reunion and voter behaviour

Commenting on the coming together of the Thackeray brothers, Pawar said the development could have electoral consequences.

“Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS traditionally had different voter bases. With them coming together, vote division could reduce, which may benefit them electorally,” he said.

Pawar clarified that he played no role in facilitating the reunion but welcomed the move, calling it a positive development within a political family.

He also cautioned against assuming uniform voter consolidation, noting that voting behaviour varies across elections.

“Voters think differently in national, state and local elections. The results of the Lok Sabha and subsequent Assembly elections clearly show that,” he added.

On free facilities, local alliances and Mumbai remark

Responding to criticism over promises of free facilities, Pawar said such decisions rest with the Chief Minister at the state level and the Prime Minister at the national level. He added that at the local body level, his experience of over two decades guides his approach.

On alliances involving parties like the NCP, Shiv Sena and AIMIM in local bodies such as the Parli Municipal Corporation, Pawar said such arrangements are common and often finalised locally without involving senior leadership.

He also strongly rejected remarks by a BJP leader claiming Mumbai is not part of Maharashtra.

“Mumbai is in India, and within India, it is in Maharashtra. It will always remain a part of Maharashtra. Such statements are made around elections to draw attention,” Pawar said.

On Bharat Ratna for Sharad Pawar

When asked whether NCP founder Sharad Pawar should be awarded the Bharat Ratna, Ajit Pawar said the decision lies with the Central government.

“Sharad Pawar has served public life for over 60 years and taken many important decisions. Anyone is free to express an opinion, but the final call rests with the Centre,” he said.

Continue Reading

India News

PSLV comeback mission hit by third-stage anomaly during launch from Sriharikota

ISRO’s PSLV-C62 mission faced a third-stage anomaly around 30 minutes after launch, raising concerns over the rocket’s comeback flight after its 2025 failure.

Published

on

PSLV LAUNCH

At 10.18 am on Tuesday, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)-C62 lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, carrying 16 satellites into space. The launch marked the first PSLV mission of the year and was being closely watched as a comeback attempt following a failure in 2025.

Roughly 30 minutes after liftoff, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) stated that the mission had “encountered an anomaly” during its third stage. The space agency has initiated a detailed analysis but has not yet officially declared the mission a failure.

Third stage issue raises concerns again

The PSLV is a four-stage launch vehicle, with the first two stages reportedly performing as expected during Tuesday’s mission. The problem surfaced during the third stage, where deviation was observed.

ISRO chairman Dr V Narayanan said that a detailed assessment is underway. Historically, issues during the third stage of a rocket have often resulted in mission failure, although ISRO has so far avoided using that term for this launch.

The setback is significant as this was intended to be a recovery mission. The PSLV’s only launch in 2025 had also failed due to a third-stage issue. An analysis committee was formed after that failure, but its findings were not made public.

Mission payload and satellite loss

The mission aimed to place a surveillance satellite into orbit. The earth observation satellite, named Anvesha, was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation. Alongside it, the PSLV carried 15 additional satellites from multiple countries, including Brazil, Nepal and the UK.

With the anomaly occurring mid-mission, these satellites are now believed to be lost.

Track record remains strong despite setback

The PSLV has completed 64 missions so far, with four failures recorded prior to this launch. If the current mission is eventually declared unsuccessful, it would mark the fifth failure, keeping the overall success rate relatively high.

However, the timing of the anomaly is a concern, given the growing reliance on PSLV for commercial and strategic launches.

Impact on space industry and future launches

The development is particularly worrying for private players in India’s expanding space ecosystem. Several start-ups had payloads on this mission, including Hyderabad-based Dhruva Space, which had placed seven satellites onboard.

The outcome also casts uncertainty over the planned industry-led PSLV launch scheduled for the first half of 2026. That mission is being developed with participation from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Larsen and Toubro.

ISRO is expected to conduct a thorough investigation into the third-stage issue before finalising the status of the mission and outlining corrective measures.

Continue Reading

India News

Mani Shankar Aiyar’s remarks on Hindutva spark political backlash from BJP

Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar’s comments on Hindutva at a Kolkata debate have triggered sharp reactions from the BJP, escalating the Hinduism versus Hindutva debate.

Published

on

manishankar aiyer

Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has triggered a political controversy after describing Hindutva as “Hinduism in paranoia” during a public debate in Kolkata, prompting a strong rebuttal from leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Aiyar made the remarks at a discussion titled “Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva”, organised by the Calcutta Debating Circle at the Calcutta Club on Sunday. Several political leaders, legal experts, historians and journalists participated in the debate.

Aiyar draws distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva

Speaking at the event, Aiyar argued that Hinduism and Hindutva are fundamentally different, describing Hinduism as a spiritual and civilisational faith, while calling Hindutva a political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century.

“Hindutva is Hinduism in paranoia. It asks 80 per cent Hindus to feel threatened by 14 per cent Muslims,” Aiyar said, adding that Hinduism had survived and flourished for thousands of years without the need for what he described as political protection.

He referred to incidents involving attacks by vigilante groups and criticised actions against individuals over religious practices, beef consumption and participation in Christmas celebrations. Aiyar also cited writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, contrasting them with the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda, whom he described as proponents of non-violence and inclusivity.

According to Aiyar, “There is no way Gandhi’s or Vivekananda’s Hinduism can be protected or promoted by Savarkar’s Hindutva.”

BJP leaders push back strongly

Aiyar’s comments drew an immediate response from BJP leaders present at the debate and later from party spokespersons.

BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi questioned the framing of the debate itself, arguing that the term “Hindutva” refers to “Hindu tattva” or the essence of Hindu philosophy. He said that associating Hinduism with the suffix “ism” was misleading and dismissive of India’s indigenous traditions.

“When you cherish Hinduism, it is called Hindutva,” Trivedi said, rejecting the distinction drawn by Aiyar.

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused Aiyar of repeatedly making remarks that, according to him, insult Sanatan Dharma. He claimed that the comments echoed the Congress party’s broader stance on Hindutva.

Poonawalla also referred to past statements by Congress leaders and said that Hindutva has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “way of life.” He accused the party of attempting to portray Hindutva as violent and divisive.

Political debate intensifies

The exchange has added to the ongoing political debate over the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, a subject that has remained contentious in Indian politics. While Aiyar defended his views as ideological and historical critique, BJP leaders framed the remarks as an attack on religious identity.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com