Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Former Supreme Court Judge Justice G.S. Singhvi, Former Law Commission Chairman Justice AP Shah, Former Chief Information Commissioners Mr. Wajahat Habibullah and Mr. Shailesh Gandhi and Activist Aruna Roy have expressed their displeasure at the Supreme Court's rejection of the CJAR's Petition requesting a investigation into the case of corruption of higher judiciary.
As signposted by a change.org Petition, they have communicated: "We are stunned at the way the Supreme Court has expelled the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms appeal of requesting an independent investigation in the above issue. Instead of observing the genuine assertions and finding a way to re-establish the integrity of the judiciary the Supreme Court has forced a penalty of Rs. 25 lakh on the petitioners. The approach of the Supreme Court in the issue has been profoundly concerning, as opposed to finding a way to explore the issue and maintain individuals confide in the judiciary, the concentration of the court is to set aside any kind of queries raised into the matter. The court's perceptions that the request is "entirely senseless, insulting, baseless, further goes against adds to the question raised by petitioners. They have a firm background for these allegations and have raised some questions which needs to be addressed.”
The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has appealed to the nationals through change.org, encouraging them to "act now to save the judiciary". The petition has been filed in the court on the basis of a FIR was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), affirming corruption in medical college admission case. The FIR alleges that a previous Orissa High Court Judge I.M. Quddusi conspired with Supreme Court judges hearing the case of a suspended private medical college and helped in revoking the ban. Accordingly the petition alleges corruption in higher judiciary.
The CJAR matter was heard by a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, the CJAR had requested that the Petition be not heard by the CJI but rather by five other senior Judges. This was, in any case, not permitted and the CJI dealt with the Petition on the administrative and also legal side. From that point, a week ago, the Apex Court had rejected CJAR's application, stating that it was "completely and contemptuous.
The Supreme Court's approach in the issue has baffled them and affirms that a "powerful and sound framework for examining complaints against judges and making them responsible must be set up". Looking for the help of the natives, it at last states, "We trust that the general population of this nation become the genuine partners in the foundation of the Judiciary and in the legal framework and consequently, must meet up to secure this vital pillar of democracy. By this announcement we ourselves participate in this basic crusade and support CJAR to convey forward its work".
86540
103860
630
114
59824