Petitioner suggests bias on part of Ranjan Gogoi in case pertaining to immigrants in Assam detention centres
Upset over the remarks of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, who had asked the Centre and Assam to evict foreign migrants from Assam, a PIL litigant, who felt that the CJI's observations were harming his petition, did the unthinkable by seeking the CJI's exit from the bench hearing the case.
Puzzled and angered with the conduct of the litigant, Harsh Mander, a retired public servant who has assisted the Apex Court in filling gaps in implementation of schemes for the marginalised, the bench kept the petition with itself and directed Mander to step out of the matter.
The Court directed the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority (SCLSA) to fight the case and assigned Mander's lawyer Prashant Bhushan to assist the Court as amicus curiae.
The State and Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, demanded a dismissal of the application and refused having any knowledge of its filing. The bench saw the application as an assault on the institution.
Rejecting Mander's demand, the Court was firm that litigants should not choose which bench is to hear a case and moreover, the basis cannot be observations made in open court but the final order passed. Also, the bench was critical of Mander for not complaining all this while when he got favourable orders. It was only when the Court spoke of deportation that he changed his view, the bench added.
The petition filed by Mander and argued by Bhushan is pending in Court for over a year. During this period, the Court pulled up the Assam and Central government over the condition of detention homes, need for more detention homes, Foreigner Tribunals, and measures to ensure their smooth repatriation or deportation.
Mander's petition only highlighted the plight of some 900-odd inmates lodged in six detention centres in Assam, which are attached to district jails. The living conditions were horrible and Mander, through his lawyer Bhushan, demanded better living conditions for the declared foreigners and their families.
On April 25, the Chief Secretary of Assam in an affidavit, proposed the release of foreigners detained beyond five years on the execution of a bond and two sureties of Rs 1 lakh each. The Court felt this proposal would encourage more foreigners to merge among locals as already the state is unable to detect 90,000 out of the 1.12 lakh declared foreigners. The Court threatened departmental action against the Chief Secretary for such an off-the-cuff submission and warned the State of its duty to protect itself from illegal foreigners.
Based on these comments, Mander's application, argued by him, alleged a "bias" on part of the CJI and felt that the observations by the Court have encouraged political parties to push foreigners out of the country when the need of the hour is to improve their living conditions in the centres housing them. The bench, headed by the CJI, dismissed the application and got a sense that Mander is being "set up" by the Assam government and its Chief Secretary to arrange the ouster of the CJI for his earlier remarks.
‘Cannot Choose Bench’
- The State and Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, demanded a dismissal of the application and refused having any knowledge of its filing
- The bench saw the application as an assault on the institution. Rejecting Harsh Mander’s demand, the SC was firm that litigants should not choose which bench is to hear a case
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Ranjan Gogoi")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}