Justice Chelameswar declines SCBA invite for his farewell

Share

Just-Ice Jasti Chelameswar includes written to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra saying that the collection of high five judges needs to match so on and have a firm stand to emphasise their decision to lift Justice KM Joseph soon after the government shipped his title back.

Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Kurian Joseph and Madan Lokur met Chief Justice Dipak Misra in his chambers around 4.15 pm.

Justice Chelameswar was later seen meeting an Opposition MP from CPI that same day following which Opposition MPs chose to bring a removal motion against CJI Dipak Misra based on the allegations made by the judges.

Citing personal reasons, Justice Chelameswar on Wednesday declined an invite by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) inviting him to the customary farewell function to be organised on May 18, the last working day before the court closes for summer break. This was the third consecutive Wednesday when Justice Chelameswar did not attend court. "Lawyers will survive only if this institution survives", said Justice Mishra, who suffered collateral damage in recent controversies concerning the Supreme Court. Notably, Justice Mishra also expressed his displeasure that the Supreme Court Bar Association had remained silent on the matter.

More news: Liverpool boss Klopp not happy with Salah dive

Usually, retiring judges attend court in the Chief Justice's courtroom and, as they rise for the day, graciously accept the best wishes of the lawyers present in court.

That can only happen once the Chief Justice convenes a formal meeting of the Collegium and places that on the agenda. The finalisation of MoP was also part of issues raised by the Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in his letter to the Chief Justice on April 30 which has irked the judges.

"Many things which are less than desirable have happened" in the SC recently, they claimed.

Meanwhile, in his letter to his colleagues in the Collegium, Justice J Chelameswar has made clear that K M Joseph's name must be reiterated, as there is no change in the facts on the ground regarding his case. Incidentally, he was the lone judge to dissent against the majority judgement striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act as unconstitutional.

Share