All that the petitioners were demanding was a free and impartial, inquiry by a court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) to bring out the truth.
The great US jurist Robert Jackson once said, "There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
Yesterday was one occasion when every right-thinking person, or at least some of them, must have wondered if the country needed a super-Supreme Court, especially since the events of the last two days have proved how infallible the top court really is.
What happened in courtroom number 1, where Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and four other judges allowed the proceedings to degenerate into a slanging match between various lawyers, many of them not even connected to the matter at hand, demands for contempt charges against lawyers and the petitioners, advocate Prashant Bhushan and CJI Misra involved in a verbal tiff, was nowhere close to how a judicial system functions.
One won't go into whether the bench of Justice Jasti Chelameswar should have taken up a case via mentioning and passed an order constituting a bench comprising the five senior-most judges to hear the matter of alleged corruption in higher judiciary.
But, do remember that among those arrested in the case is former Odisha High Court judge IM Quddusi. Also, it may not be incorrect to assume that, if allowed to investigate the case freely, the CBI, which is investigating the case, might eventually scan cases and/or judicial pronouncements passed by the bench in which members of the higher judiciary were a party to.
All that the petitioners were demanding was a free and impartial, inquiry by a court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) to bring out the truth.
What one can't help wonder is whether CJI Misra shouldn't or couldn't have involved the senior-most judges, apart from Justice Chelameswar, in yesterday's proceedings? If he didn't have faith in the judicial ability of his number 2 judge, what about judge numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 according to seniority? But the bench that annulled Thursday's order comprised, in order of seniority, apart from the CJI, justices RK Agrawal (8), Arun Kumar Mishra (10), Amitava Roy (16) and AM Khanwilkar (17).
In involving himself in the matter, the CJI may have breached the principle of Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause).
The moment his name was mentioned by the lawyers, shouldn't he have recused himself?
Unfortunately, yesterday the foundation of Indian judiciary may have been breached beyond repair — from within. And, this time, we can't even blame the Executive.
){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}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}