The differences between the two benches points at fresh trouble in the top court in the backdrop of allegations of judicial indiscipline and breach of propriety
Two Supreme Court benches of three judges each arrived at conflicting conclusions in a land acquisition case, leading the matter to be referred to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra for constituting an "appropriate bench" to deal with the "piquant" situation. The differences between the two benches points at fresh trouble in the top court in the backdrop of allegations of judicial indiscipline and breach of propriety.
The matter pertains to an order passed on February 8 by a bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, AK Goel and MM Shantanagouder. In a 2:1 majority, the bench held as invalid a 2014 judgment involving land acquisition delivered by Justices RM Lodha, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph.
In 2014, the apex court had ruled that landowners would receive higher compensation if the requisite amount, acquired under the land Acquisition Act of 1894, was retained in the treasury and not disbursed to the landowner or deposited with a competent court. Usually, only a larger bench can overrule a judgment passed by a bench. In this case, only a bench comprising of four or more judges could have contradicted the 2014 judgement.
The February 8 judgment was favourable to the government, as opposed to the 2014 judgment, which greatly benefitted landowners. Here, the Justice Mishra-led bench held that land acquisition would not lapse even if landowners did not receive compensation or if the required amount was deposited with court.
However, on Wednesday a bench comprising Justices Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph (both were part of the bench in 2014) and Deepak Gupta made strong remarks and observations when a land acquisition matter with a similar grievance came up for hearing.
Justice Joseph did not hold back his displeasure when he observed that "I don't want to remain silent on this issue. There are certain principles which cannot be deviated from. The system exists on these holy principles. This court should function as one institution." He added that the interest of the institution required that the Supreme Court act like one and not 14 different courts (courtrooms).
The differences between the judges bring forth the January 8 press conference by four SC judges who alluded that all was not well within the top court and accused CJI Misra of tinkering with a well-oiled machine.
){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}
 "Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Dipak Misra")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}