Easy to make irresponsible allegations; judges have to follow discipline: CJI to senior advocate Dushyant Dave
text_fields
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Wednesday said that it’s ‘easy to irresponsible’ in making ‘allegations against the Registry’ but the ‘judges have to follow some discipline’ while discharging their duties.
His remarks came while responding to senior advocate Dushyant Dave over a controversy regarding a politically sensitive case from Tamil Nadu.
“Mr Dave, it is always easy to be irresponsible in your allegations against the Registry. You have the liberty to criticise everybody under the sun. We as judges of this court have to follow some discipline,” the CJI told the senior counsel.
Advocate Dave had raised certain objections about the listing of the case regarding the 2014 Tamil Nadu cash-for-jobs scam in which V Senthil Balaji, a minister in the state’s ruling DMK government, was facing charges.
Balaji and others were accused of taking bribes from job aspirants on the false promise of appointment to the Metro Transport Corporation (MTC).
At least three FIRs were registered in 2018 following which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against them.
The Madras High Court quashed the criminal complaint in the case citing that a
compromise was reached between the complainant victims and Balaji and others.
However, a two-judge Supreme Court bench comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer (now retired) and V Ramasubramanian, set aside this order , on September 8, 2022 and restored the criminal charges against the DMK leader and the co-accused.
Justice Ramasubramanian, who wrote the judgment for the bench, also directed the state government to take effective steps to vacate the stay orders passed by the high court in the connected matters so that prosecution could proceed in accordance with the law.
In October 2022, a single-judge bench of the Madras high court refused to discharge Balaji and others but ordered a fresh investigation in two of such cases while deciding the revision petitions.
The orders passed by the division bench and the single judge bench were challenged before the Supreme Court by the complainants in the case as well as ED at different points of time.
The first set of cases was listed before a bench led by justice Krishna Murari who heard some of these matters earlier in 2022 when he sat on a bench headed by former CJI Ramana.
Another appeal filed by ED was listed before a bench led by justice Ramasubramanian who authored the judgment in the matter in September 2022.
On Wednesday morning, advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned a contempt plea against the state government on behalf of an NGO, Anti-Corruption Movement.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Dave appeared for the alleged bribe givers and bribe takers while solicitor general Tushar Mehta represented ED and, senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Balaji Srinivasan appeared for the victims who did not pay bribes.
The police, however, filed a request for a fresh probe and the HC allowed it.
This was challenged before the SC where the connected matters came to be listed before benches headed by Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ramasubramanian.
The confusion led to all matters to be placed before the CJI for deciding who should hear.
Dave, who was appearing for one of the respondents in the case, then raised objections as to how one of the matters came to be listed before a different bench when the connected matters were being heard by the bench headed by Justice Krishna Murari.
When the senior advocate persisted with his comments despite the CJI’s assurance that he would look into the case, the CJI said that the judges have to follow some discipline.
