English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Justice Chelameswar refuses to hear PIL on allocation of cases in SC, says “reasons are too obvious”

Published

8 years ago

on

Justice Chelameswar refuses to hear PIL on allocation of cases in SC, says “reasons are too obvious”

A Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Jasti Chelameswar on Thursday, April 12, turned down an urgent mentioning to list for hearing a petition seeking clarification on the role of Chief Justice of India (CJI) as ‘master of the roster’ and specify that the CJI’s authority as such should not be reduced to an absolute, singular and arbitrary power.

This comes a day after a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra ruled that constitution of benches of the top court allocation of cases is exclusive prerogative of the CJI.

Justice Chelameswar – the senior-most judge after the Chief Justice – refused to hear the PIL filed on behalf of former Union minister Shanti Bhushan, commenting: “There is nothing much I can do in this. I am sorry. You please understand my difficulty… With two months left, I don’t want to hear that I am trying to grab some office. I do not want another reversal of my order in 24 hours. This is why I can’t do it. Let the nation decide its own course.”

Justice Chelameswar was referring to his earlier order which was quashed on November 10, 2017 by a Constitution Bench headed by CJI in the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) case.

Justice Chelameswar, who has been critical of Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s handling of the roster and had, along with three other senior judges, held an unprecedented press conference to slam CJI’s allocation of important cases to benches headed by junior judges, said that reasons for him not hearing Shanti Bhushan’s petition were “too obvious”.

A report by news agency PTI quoted Justice Chelameswar as saying: “someone is running a relentless tirade against me that I am up to grab something (sic)… Please understand my difficulty.”

The former law minister’s son and advocate Prashant Bhushan, however, persisted with the request to have the petition heard, claiming that the plea had been filed 10 days ago but the Supreme Court registry was yet to list it before a bench.

A report in The Hindu said that it was then that Justice Chelameswar’s puisne judge, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, to say that retirement is looming for his senior brother judge and Justice Chelameswar should be spared from being dragged into controversy.

Prashant Bhushan was then forced to move to the court of Chief Justice Dipak Misra with his request to have his father’s petition heard. It may be recalled that while filing the PIL, the Bhushans had urged the Supreme Court registry to not list the plea before a bench headed by the Chief Justice.

In Court No. 1, as Prashant Bhushan urged the judges to list the petition for hearing, Justice DY Chandrachud asked: “have the defects (in the petition) been removed?” With Prashant Bhushan replying in the affirmative and adding that he had earlier urged the court of Justice Chelameswar to hear the matter but that his bench conveyed to him that “it could not do anything about it”, Chief Justice Dipak Misra said: “we will look into it.”

The petition by the Bhushans seeks a ruling by the apex court on the administrative authority of the Chief Justice in his capacity as the apex court’s master of roster and for laying down the principles and procedure to be followed while allocation of cases to various benches.

The Wednesday (April 11) verdict delivered by a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra himself against a petition filed by Allahabad-based lawyer Asok Pande ruled that constitution of benches of the top court allocation of cases is exclusive prerogative of the CJI.

Several jurists and former judges of the Supreme Court and various high courts have criticised the verdict, arguing that the CJI should have recused himself from hearing the petition filed by Pande as the petition directly concerned him.

The April 11 verdict, delivered by the bench that also comprised of Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, reaffirms that the Chief Justice is “the first among equals” and “in the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches… has an exclusive prerogative.”

The 16-page verdict, authored by Justice Chandrachud, had dismissed Pande’s plea terming it as “scandalous” and said: “Underlying the submission that the constitution of Benches and the allocation of cases by the Chief Justice must be regulated by a procedure cast in iron is the apprehension that absent such a procedure the power will be exercised arbitrarily. In his capacity as a Judge, the Chief Justice is primus inter pares: the first among equals… Article 146 reaffirms the position of the Chief Justice of India as the head of the institution… As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself… The ultimate purpose behind the entrustment of authority to the Chief Justice is to ensure that the Supreme Court is able to fulfil and discharge the constitutional obligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence. The entrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust. The oath of office demands nothing less.”

On the issue of how judges must be selected for various benches and to hear different kinds of cases that come before the apex court, the verdict had said: “the petitioner (Asok Pande) seems to harbour a misconception that certain categories of cases or certain courts must consist only of the senior-most in terms of appointment. Every Judge appointed to this Court under Article 124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of adjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned by the Chief Justice. Seniority in terms of appointment has no bearing on which cases a Judge should hear… every Judge of the Court is entitled to and in fact, duty bound, to hear such cases as are assigned by the Chief Justice…”

“To suggest that any Judge would be more capable of deciding particular cases or that certain categories of cases should be assigned only to the senior-most among the Judges of the Supreme Court has no foundation in principle or precedent. To hold otherwise would be to cast a reflection on the competence and ability of other judges to deal with all cases assigned by the Chief Justice notwithstanding the fact that they have fulfilled the qualifications mandated by the Constitution for appointment to the office,” the verdict said.

—With inputs from India Legal Bureau and agencies

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump says Iran getting more serious in talks, no decision yet on major strikes

Donald Trump says Iran is becoming more serious in negotiations with the US but insists no decision has been taken on launching major military strikes against Tehran.

Published

2 days ago

on

July 25, 2026

By

Donald Trump

US President Donald Trump has said he has not yet decided whether to authorise major military strikes against Iran, stating that Tehran has become “more serious” in its negotiations with Washington even as tensions between the two countries remain high.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday, Trump said discussions with Iran were continuing and suggested diplomatic efforts were showing signs of progress.

“We’re talking to them right now. I think they’re getting more and more serious as the days go by,” Trump said, adding that no final decision had been taken on launching military action.

Trump says diplomacy remains an option

Trump said the United States remained prepared for military action if required but indicated that ongoing talks could still lead to an agreement.

“We’re locked and loaded and ready to go. But we’re talking to them, so I think while we’re talking, we’ll see what comes of it. I believe they’re very serious. They should be,” he said.

The US President also warned that Iran would face a “much higher level” of strikes if negotiations failed, while reiterating that preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon remained his key red line.

The United States has said its military operations are aimed at preventing Iran from closing the strategically important Strait of Hormuz. Iran, meanwhile, has carried out retaliatory strikes on US bases, with four American service members reported killed.

Reports claim Trump discussed large-scale military operation

Trump’s remarks came after media reports suggested he met senior advisers to discuss the possibility of a large-scale military operation against Iran. Another report said he was considering a “massive attack”, although Trump did not confirm those reports during his interaction with journalists.

He also acknowledged that the prolonged conflict, which he had earlier expected to last only a few weeks, was approaching its fifth month and had become a political challenge ahead of the US midterm elections scheduled for November.

Trump issues warning over support for Iran

Trump also addressed reports claiming that Russia and China were providing intelligence or military support to Iran. He said both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured him they would not arm Tehran.

“I think they wouldn’t want to have me disappointed,” Trump said.

In a separate post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned Moscow and Beijing against supplying weapons to Iran, saying such a move would not be in their interests.

He further stated that Xi had assured him during their meeting in Beijing in May that China would not provide weapons to Iran, while Putin had conveyed a similar position despite the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Continue Reading

India News

For second time, US strikes ship with Indian crew near Strait of Hormuz

Published

5 days ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

Strait of Hormuz

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has said that an oil tanker carrying Indian crew was drifting with its engine switched off near the Strait of Hormuz before it was struck by US forces.

A CENTCOM spokesperson said the vessel had stopped due to engine failure and was drifting after its crew repeatedly sought additional time to carry out repairs. US officials said the tanker was struck only after it failed to comply with directives issued by US forces enforcing a blockade on vessels allegedly transporting Iranian oil. The military said the strike was aimed at disabling the ship by targeting its engine room rather than sinking it.

The incident involved a tanker carrying Indian seafarers near the Gulf of Oman, close to the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s busiest maritime trade routes. The strike triggered a fire onboard, prompting rescue efforts by Omani authorities and maritime agencies. Indian authorities closely monitored the situation and coordinated with local officials regarding the welfare of the crew members.

The incident has drawn concern in India, with the government emphasising the safety of Indian nationals working aboard commercial vessels in the conflict-hit region. The Ministry of External Affairs has remained in touch with the authorities concerned as tensions between the United States and Iran continue to pose risks to international shipping.

In June, three Indian sailors were killed in a US strike on another oil tanker. The Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of the word’s oil trade, and the latest incident has renewed concerns over the security of merchant vessels operating in the region. Maritime experts have warned that escalating hostilities could further disrupt commercial shipping and endanger civilian crews navigating one of the world’s most strategically important waterways.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Trump announces phased tariff of up to 200% on generic drug imports, India may face impact

US President Donald Trump has announced a phased tariff plan on imported generic medicines, raising duties to 200% after three years, a move that could affect India’s pharmaceutical exports.

Published

5 days ago

on

July 22, 2026

By

Donald Trump

The United States has announced a phased tariff plan for imported generic medicines that could have implications for pharmaceutical exporters, including India. US President Donald Trump said the policy is intended to encourage companies to shift generic drug manufacturing to the United States by imposing steep tariffs after a two-year transition period.

The announcement is particularly important for India, one of the world’s largest suppliers of affordable generic medicines and a major exporter to the US market.

Trump outlines phased tariff plan

In a post on his Truth Social platform, President Trump said the new policy will take effect from August 1, 2026. Under the plan, imported generic medicines will continue to attract zero tariffs for the first two years.

Beginning in the third year, the tariff will increase to 100%, before rising further to 200% thereafter.

Trump said the measure is designed to encourage pharmaceutical companies to establish manufacturing facilities in the United States instead of relying on imports.

He added that companies choosing not to invest in US-based production during the transition period would face the higher tariff rates. According to Trump, the existing policy governing patented, branded and innovative medicines will remain unchanged.

Why India could be affected

India is widely regarded as the “pharmacy of the world” because of its large-scale production and export of generic medicines.

Indian generic drugs account for nearly 40% of the US generic medicine market by volume. According to a Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) report, India exported pharmaceutical products worth USD 9.7 billion to the United States during the 2024-25 financial year, representing around 38% of the country’s total pharmaceutical exports of USD 25.8 billion.

However, the immediate impact of the newly announced tariff policy on Indian pharmaceutical companies remains uncertain.

Existing trade agreement and industry concerns

India and the United States struck a trade pact in February that states India would receive negotiated outcomes regarding generic pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients.

Despite that provision, previous tariff threats by Trump had already raised concerns within the pharmaceutical industry over the future of affordable medicine exports from India.

Indian pharmaceutical companies supply a wide range of generic medicines used to treat conditions including hypertension, diabetes, depression, cancer, infectious diseases and mental health disorders.

According to a Financial Post report cited in the source material, around 65% of birth control pill prescriptions in the United States during 2024 were manufactured by two India-based companies — Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Lupin Ltd.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com