In a letter to Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and A K Sikri, the senior advocate, in his personal capacity, condemned the conduct of Campaign for Judical Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) in filing a complaint with them accusing the CJI of alleged misconduct in the case related to Prasad Education Trust.
CJAR's convenor and advocate Prashant Bhushan had yesterday held a press conference in which he had informed that the body has handed over a complaint against the CJI to the five senior most Supreme Court judges.
In the complaint, he has repeated all the allegations the CJAR had raised in its PIL which was dismissed last year by the apex court with an exemplary cost of Rs 25 lakh.
He referred to a statement made in the complaint and termed it as "complete falsehood" saying similar orders were passed in five matters of medical colleges listed on September 18, 2017 by a bench headed by the CJI.
"The entire complaint revolves on this falsehood that if the facts were to be put in perspective, there could be no question of any wrong-doing in the matter and the complaint by CJAR is an attempt to scandalise the judiciary and hence the complainant needs to be charged with criminal contempt," he said in the letter.
The apex court had dismissed the plea of CJAR for special investigation team (SIT) probe into the bribery case in which the CBI filed an FIR against ex-judge of Orissa high court I M Quddusi.
Quddusi and a few others were arrested in the case related to Prasad Education Trust by the CBI and later granted bail by a court.
Referring to the in-house procedure to deal with the complaints against judges of the apex court and high courts, CJAR's convenor and advocate Prashant Bhushan had yesterday said they have to be sent to the CJI but no procedure has been laid down for enquiring into a complaint against the head of the judiciary.
The four dissenting judges were Justices Chelameswar, Gogoi, Lokur and Joseph.
Bhushan had alleged that from the recorded conversation of the accused, including Quddusi, it was clear that there was a serious conspiracy of bribe in the medical college case.
However, he had clarified that he was not alleging that the CJI was involved in the conspiracy and said that a thorough investigation was required in it.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
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
