Informed sources feel that if Dinakaran doesn’t listen to the advice of the collegium, headed by chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan, it could be a huge embarrassment.
The Supreme Court collegium’s decision advising controversial Karnataka high court chief justice PD Dinakaran, who is facing an inquiry for various corruption charges by a constitutional panel, to proceed on leave, is not binding on him.
Though propriety demands that a judge, like any other public servant, shed the functioning temporarily until absolved by an inquiry panel, the scam charge-hit Dinakaran could take refuge in the apex court’s constitution bench judgment holding, that says until the charges are proved , an errant judge can’t be divested of his right to conduct proceedings.
Informed sources feel that if Dinakaran doesn’t listen to the advice of the collegium, headed by chief justice of India KG Balakrishnan, it could be a huge embarrassment.
A senior Delhi High Court justice Madan Lokur is on his way to Bangalore to take over the charge of chief justice. It is constitutionally impermissible to have two full time chief justices posted in one High Court. Justice Dinakaran hasn’t been perfroming his duties since the inquiry was ordered.
If proved guilty of even a single charge from the 12 that Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari had culled out while accepting the memorandum for removal of the judge concerned, Dinakaran would face the motion for removal (impeachment) in the House.
Though the power to recommend appointment, transfer and elevation of High Court judges rest with the collegium, it lacks the authority of divesting a judge of the judicial work or compel him to proceed on leave.
By a majority 4:1, the then Justices BC Ray, MN Venkatachaliah, JS Verma and SC Agrawal had opined in the early 90s that ``propriety required that even before the charges are proved, the Judge should not be embarrassed’’.
``The constitutional protection to Judges is not for their personal benefit; but is one of the means of protecting the judiciary and its independence and is, therefore, in the larger public interest’’. While dealing with the issue of whether a sitting SC judge V Ramaswami, also facing an inquiry, could be asked by CJI not to perform judicial duties, majority opined ``recourse to constitutional methods must be adhered to, if the system were to survive.’’ No judicial work was passed on to Ramaswami.
){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}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}