SC dismisses PIL against a former apex court judge

Image
IANS New Delhi
Last Updated : Apr 10 2015 | 8:57 PM IST

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a PIL by lawyer Prashant Bhushan seeking a CBI probe against former apex court judge, Justice C.K.Prasad, for alleged misconduct as a judge.

The PIL has also sought direction to the central government to initiate steps for the removal Justice Prasad as the chairman of the Press Council of India.

Dismissing the plea by Prashant Bhushan, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C. Pant said it was their opinion that "any person, who is aggrieved by any kind of order passed by respondent no.4 (Justice Prasad) in the discharge of his judicial duty while functioning as a judge of this court" can file an application for review or take recourse to the curative petition or any other legal remedy available in law.

But, Justice Misra pronouncing the order, said that such a petitioner "cannot be allowed to make such a prayer invoking the conceptual facet of Public Interest Litigation" under article 32 of the constitution.

"This will open a dangerous door which can't be shut to file anything against the judge over his order. Assuming the order is incorrect or absurd, it may be corrected by review or corrective petition," the court said not accepting senior counsel Shanti Bhushan's submission that what had happened was a "gross misconduct" on the part of the now retired judge.

Noting that even Supreme Court Bar Association president Dushyant Dave had written to the then chief justice about the incident relating to a matter before the court, Bhushan said: "It is an open and shut case of gross misconduct of a former judge of the apex court."

Telling Shanti Bhushan that the petitioner Prashant Bhushan had no locus and was a total stranger to the matter that is being raised against Justice Prasad to allege misconduct on his part, the court said: "Who are you? You are a stranger..."

Telling the court that "unless the matter is taken seriously, there will be no credibility of the apex court", Bhushan said that "the facts of the case will shock the conscience of the court" and "the entire bar understands the matter."

The court did not accept Bhushan's argument that unless the FIR is registered against the former judge, "the credibility of the judiciary will be endangered" and it was "obligatory on the part of the investigating agency to register FIR" as directed by the apex court in its verdict in Lalitha Kumari case.

"We are absolutely convinced that the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in Lalitha Kumari is not applicable to the facts of the case," the court said, dismissing the PIL.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 10 2015 | 8:44 PM IST

Next Story