Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice N.V.Ramana recused from hearing the plea which was challenging M.Nageshwara Rao’s appointment as interim director of CBI after being recused by CJI Gogoi and Justice Sikri.
Justice Ramana has stated that he has attended Nageshwara Rao’s Daughter’s wedding and he was acquainted with their son-in-law, so based on which he has recused the case which was filed by the NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj.
Dushyant Dave with a disappointment after being recused by 3 Court’s have asked that “Should we go to DELHI high court?
Justice Ramana has responded that “please understand my conditions and if it’s not I would have allowed it, I will pass an order and request to place it on board as per CJI directions.
Firstly during January 21, the CJI Gogoi stated that he is a part of the committee for selection of next CBI director, so he has recused from hearing the petition. Later, Justice Sikri too recused from hearing the petition on January 24 as he was part of High Powered Committee which had removed Alok Verma as CBI director after which Govt has appointed Nageswara Rao as interim Director. After that matter was assigned to the bench headed by Justice Bobde, the third senior judge. However, it got assigned to the bench of Justice Ramana, the fourth senior judge, as Justice Bobde is unavailable due to a medical event.
Background of petition
The petition has said that according to Delhi Special Police Establishment act the main basis of recommendations of the high powered selection committee in the way which Nageswara Rao has not been appointed.
As per the early arrangement, the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet has approved the appointment of Rao. However, the earliest arrangement had been quashed by SC in Alok Verma case.
However, still the government invoked its earlier order and appointed Nageshwaae. Rao for which petitioners states that Government can’t give charge of CB under Section 4A of DSPE act The government has stated that it has attempted to stifle the independence of the institution of the CBI by appointing the Director of the CBI in an arbitrary and illegal manner. There can’t be any meaningful public scrutiny as there should be transparency giving government undue influence on this aspect.
86540
103860
630
114
59824