Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
While the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) has demanded for an in-house inquiry against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra connected to the medical college scam, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has now come forward to bring up "errors" in CJAR's complaint. The complaint has been made by the executive committee of CJAR to five senior-most judges of the Apex Court after the CJI i.e. Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice R. Gogoi, Justice M.B. Lokur, Justice K. Joseph and Justice A.K. Sikri. Mr. Singh, who was the Counsel for the Medical Council of India in the medical college case before the Supreme Court, has written to these five Judges stating the shortcomings in the complaint of CJAR. In the letter, he alludes to a statement made in the complaint which claims that there exists uncertainty with respect to whether the order passed on 18 September, 2017 in the matter was dictated in open court or was kept pending and dictated after the filing of the FIR.
The Court had, on 18 September, denied Prasad Education Trust's plea to allow it to run this academic year. Denying the CJAR's claim, Mr. Singh says, "The said statement is a total deception as similar orders were passed in five cases recorded that day by a Bench managed by the Hon'ble CJI in which Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Chandrachud were members. There was no doubt for the order changing on account of a specific college, such was the lucidity in the guidance for the College and the same can be affirmed by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, the Advocate on Record for Medical Council of India in the case."
He at that point expresses that out of the ten cases of Medical Colleges recorded before the Court that day, orders in nine issues were soon made accessible on the Supreme Court site and five of them were similar orders denying permission to these Colleges to function in the present year. Depending on this claim, Mr. Singh along these lines asserts that the complaint by the CJAR is "an endeavor to embarrass the judiciary and consequently complaint should be made charging with criminal contempt.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824