قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / . 1 Times! Opposition parties decide to sue CJI

. 1 Times! Opposition parties decide to sue CJI



  Dismissal of Cji, Deepak Misra, M Venkaiah Naidu, Supreme Court, death of Judge BH Loya, Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, Kapil Sibal However, the move revealed cracks in opposition unity as only seven parties ̵
1; the Congress , CPI (M), CPI, NCP, SP, BSP and IUML – have signed on the request. (PTI)

Seven opposition parties, led by Congress, launched an unprecedented initiative to prosecute the Supreme Judge of India (CJI) Deepak Misra, accuse him of corruption, abuse his authority and defend the independence of the judiciary. Party leaders met Vice-President M Venkaiah Naidu, who is also the chairman of Rajya Sabha, and handed over the indictment with signatures from 64 MPs and seven former MPs who had recently retired. This happened one day after a Supreme Court led by CJI Misra rejected a series of petitions calling for an independent investigation into the death of Judge BH Loya, who heard the case of Sohrabuddin Sheikh

had never come, " Kapil Sibal, the chairman of the congress, added that the step "with a heavy heart" was taken to protect the independence of the judiciary, in which the parties cited five "misconduct charges" against the CJI, arguing that that as MPs they are "entitled to hold the Supreme Court to account" and that "the majesty of the law is more important than the majesty of the law any office." The five acts of alleged misconduct include charges of "the conspiracy to pay illegal Satisfaction by persons related to the case Prasad Education Trust and the way in which de r case was treated by the Chief Justice ".

They also charged with "abuse of power" in deciding to "send sensitive matters to certain banks by abusing their authority as a master of the directory with the likely intention of influencing the outcome". An indictment dates back to 1984, when the CJI was a lawyer. The indictment is that he acquired a piece of government land by making a "false affidavit".

Sibal said, "The convention was that if such charges are brought against the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court, refrain from fulfilling its judicial functions." That's the convention, and I hope that this move will not violate this convention. "However, the move revealed cracks in opposition unity as only seven parties – Congress, CPI (M), CPI, NCP, SP, BSP and IUML – have signed the motion.

The Trinamool Congress and DMK are not signatories. While the indictment carries 71 signatures, opposition leader Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad said they had asked the chairman to exclude the names of seven of them for having withdrawn from the House of Lords.
Azad claimed the move had nothing to do with the Supreme Court ruling in the Loya case. He said the opposition had been looking for an appointment with the vice president a week ago, but could not meet him because he was out of service.

"If he had been here, we would have given it a week ago," he said. Azad said that the request for removal of the CJI under Article 217 in conjunction with Article 124 (4) of the Constitution was also filed on behalf of the unsigned parties. While Azad said he expects "positive action" from the vice president, Sibal said, "I do not think such charges can be ignored."

However, in a press release released after the petition was filed, the parties mentioned the Loya case and the press conference held by the four highest judges of the Supreme Court, Judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogai, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, held in January. It is said that since Misra was appointed, "there have been situations in which questions have been raised about the way he handles certain cases and makes certain administrative decisions."

Referring to the press conference of the four judges, Sibal said: "We had hoped that the fears of the judges, reflected in their statements to the press, would be addressed by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judge would be fine in answering his house More than three months have passed and nothing has changed. "" The recent statements by two senior judges to the Supreme Court show that the Supreme Judge did not assert the independence of the judiciary in the face of executive interference The Supreme Court itself believes that the independence of the judiciary is under threat and democracy is in danger, alluding to the functioning of the Office of the Supreme Court of India should the nation stand still and do nothing? "

" Should people of this country allow the institution to reduce it and not protect it from inside and out? .. The Constitution only allows recourse to the situation. Since there is no other way to protect the institution than to file a lawsuit, we, the members of the Rajya Sabha, do so with a heavy heart. "Sibal said that they propose behaviors that apply to a person who

"The first indictment relates to the conspiracy to pay illegal gratification by persons in connection with the Prasad Education Trust case and in the way the case was handled by the Supreme Court", Sibal said: "There are several recorded conversations between middlemen, including a retired judge of the Orissa High Court (and) references to the Supreme Court through allusions in these talks are evident." The opposition has attached excerpts from the transcripts with the petition

"Refusing permission for the CBI, an FIR against Justice Narayan Shukla of the Upper Geric It was an act of misconduct itself when the CBI shared incriminating information with the Chief Justice. All this requires a thorough investigation, "he said, while the second indictment relates to the order for a judicial group headed by Justice J Chelameswar to petition for a judicially-controlled investigation into the Prasad Trust case. that the CJI decided to hear the matter itself, in which he "would probably also fall into the scope of the investigation."

"The practice in the Supreme Court is that when the Chief Justice sits in a constitutional bank, and affairs should Requests for listing are to be filed before the first puisne judge … On 9 November 2017, when a written petition before Justice Chelameswar was mentioned at 10.30 am because the chief lawyer was sitting in a constitutional bank, the same thing became you later noted the same day. "" When the matter was seized, a note dated 6 November 2017 was sent to the judges who were holding the matter from an officer of the register, "he said "The charge of the predicate offense is after all a very serious charge," he said.

On charges that the CJI obtained land when he was a lawyer, By giving a sworn statement that turned out to be false, Sibal said: Despite the orders of the ADM, which canceled the allotment in 1985, the Chief Justice did not give up the country until he was called to the Supreme Court in 2012. "Why only Seven parties have signed the petition, Azad said: "There are parties that have signed, there are parties that have not signed … but all support it". He claimed that there was unity among the opposition parties. What the Congress would do if the vice-president rejects the announcement, Sibal said, "There are many ways in the constitution."

"We hope that a thorough investigation will take place so that truth triumphs alone." Democracy can flourish only if our judiciary is firm and independent of the executive and fulfills its constitutional functions honestly, fearlessly, and with a steady hand. " Sibal said. Why former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did not sign the motion, Sibal said, "We did not want to involve Dr. Singh, he's a former prime minister."

Once the indictment is filed, the Chairman of Rajya Sabha will determine if there is any merit or reason to make such an application, or reject it. He can form a committee to deal with, if he finds merit in it. If the indictment is denied, Congress is likely to refer the Supreme Court to the Chairman's decision, it said.


Source link