English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

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

Published

9 years ago

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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

Delhi Police offers 11-person limit for CJP’s Connaught Place protest

Delhi Police has offered to facilitate a group of 11 people at Central Park in Connaught Place for the Cockroach Janata Party’s October 16 protest, while warning that violations of prohibitory orders could invite legal action.

Published

6 mins ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

CJP protest to continue

Delhi Police has proposed allowing a group of 11 people to carry the national flag and sing the national anthem at Central Park in Connaught Place on October 16, ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) over alleged electoral fraud.

The police said it could facilitate the group at a suitable place in the park, while appealing to the public not to join the proposed gathering in large numbers. The offer comes amid prohibitory orders in Connaught Place and adjoining areas under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke has called on people to assemble at Central Park at 5 pm on Friday with the national flag. The proposed demonstration, named “Lehra Do Tiranga”, follows the detention of CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka during an earlier protest.

Why Delhi Police proposed limiting the gathering

In its statement, Delhi Police cited the prevailing security and law-and-order situation in the area. It also referred to information from the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) that Central Park would remain closed on October 16 and 17 for administrative reasons.

Deputy Commissioner of Police Neha Yadav said the NDMC had informed the police about the closure and had asked that no gathering be allowed near the park.

The police also cited representations from trader and market associations in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. According to the police, the associations had raised concerns about unlawful assemblies and their impact on businesses, particularly during the festive season.

Police warned that violations of Section 163 BNSS would invite appropriate legal action. It also stressed that the national flag must be displayed and carried, and the national anthem sung, in the prescribed manner with due respect and dignity.

Delhi High Court declines to stop CJP protest

The proposed gathering reached the Delhi High Court after a vendor sought intervention over concerns about disruption to businesses and public movement in Connaught Place.

On Thursday, the court declined to restrain the CJP from holding the protest. It recorded the police’s assurance that all possible measures under the law would be taken to regulate the gathering and maintain peace.

The petition was filed by a vendor at Palika Bazar in Connaught Place, who raised concerns about the potential impact of the demonstration on traders and others working in the area.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the authorities, told the court that steps had already been taken to regulate the proposed protest.

CJP’s protest call follows detention of party members

Dipke’s October 16 protest call follows earlier demonstrations over alleged electoral fraud. CJP members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka are in jail on trespass charges after raising the national flag at Jantar Mantar earlier this week, according to the report.

The party has been protesting over alleged electoral fraud and has raised questions about the Election Commission.

Dipke has urged people to gather at Central Park with the national flag, arguing that raising the Tricolour should not be treated as a crime.

The police’s proposal to facilitate a group of 11 people came as the authorities sought to prevent a larger gathering at the site. The CJP’s response to the police’s offer was still awaited in the report published on October 15.

Continue Reading

India News

Actor Imran Khan asked to leave India after CJP protest

Actor Imran Khan has been asked to leave India by October 28, days after participating in a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

Published

1 hour ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

Actor Imran Khan, nephew of Bollywood star Aamir Khan, has been asked to leave India by the Mumbai Police, days after participating in a protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Mumbai.

According to the notice, the actor has been given until October 28 to leave the country. The development follows his participation in the demonstration, which brought the actor into the spotlight over his involvement in a political protest.

Imran Khan is believed to hold US citizenship and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card rather than full Indian citizenship, according to the report.

What led to the notice against Imran Khan?

The notice came days after Imran Khan joined a protest called by the CJP in Mumbai. The group, described as a satirical political organisation, had called for the demonstration.

The actor’s participation was followed by action from the authorities, with the Mumbai Police directing him to leave India by the specified deadline.

The notice does not, by itself, mean that the actor has already left the country or has been deported. October 28 is the deadline mentioned for his departure.

Imran Khan and his citizenship status

Imran Khan is known for his work in Hindi films, including Jaane Tu… Ya Jaane Na and Delhi Belly. He is also the nephew of actor Aamir Khan.

The report states that Imran Khan is believed to be a US citizen and hold an OCI card. OCI status does not confer Indian citizenship, although it provides eligible foreign citizens of Indian origin with specified privileges under Indian law.

The notice directing the actor to leave India follows his participation in the Mumbai protest. The reported development has brought attention to the intersection of immigration rules and the participation of foreign nationals in political demonstrations.

Continue Reading

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 15, 2026

By

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Assam
  • Bihar
  • Chhattisgarh
  • Goa
  • Gujarat
  • Kerala
  • Lakshadweep
  • Madhya Pradesh
  • Manipur
  • Puducherry
  • Punjab
  • Rajasthan
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Uttar Pradesh
  • Uttarakhand
  • West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com