NEW DELHI: It’s always easy to be irresponsible in making allegations against the Supreme Court administration but the judges have to follow some discipline as they discharge their duty, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud asserted on Wednesday, responding to a controversy over the listing of a politically sensitive case from Tamil Nadu before two different benches.
The CJI, who is also the master of the roster and is the head of the administration in the top court, remained emphatic that the court registry abides by certain laid down norms and that he would look into pertinent grievances as and when they are brought to his notice by lawyers and litigants.
Responding to a statement from senior advocate Dushyant Dave that the court registry must follow rules in listing cases, justice Chandrachud said: “Mr Dave, it is always easy to be irresponsible in your allegations against the registry. You have the liberty to criticise everybody under the sun. But we, as judges of this court, have to follow some discipline. And I am following it by looking into the matter.”
The controversy relates to a corruption case from Tamil Nadu, involving the minister for electricity, prohibition and excise, V Senthil Balaji, in the DMK-led government. Several complaints were filed against Balaji in connection with a job scam during his tenure as transport minister in 2011-15 in the previous AIADMK government. Balaji and some others were accused of taking bribes from job aspirants on the false promise of appointment to the Metro Transport Corporation (MTC).
Following the registration of at least three FIRs in 2018, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) also registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against Balaji and others.
In July 2022, the Madras high court quashed one of these FIRs, noting a compromise reached between the complainant victims and Balaji and others. But a Supreme Court bench comprising justices S Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian, in September 2022, set aside this order and restored the criminal charges against the DMK leader and co-accused. Justice Ramasubramanian, who wrote the judgment for the bench, also directed the state government to take effective steps to vacate the stay orders passed by the high court in the connected matters so that prosecution could proceed in accordance with the law.
The matter was heard by the bench led by justice Nazeer after the then CJI NV Ramana referred it there by an order in August 2022.
Meanwhile, on September 1, 2022, a division bench of the Madras high court directed ED not to proceed with its investigation until the petitions filed by Balaji and some other accused challenging the criminal proceedings were decided.
In October 2022, a single-judge bench of the Madras high court refused to discharge Balaji and others but ordered a fresh investigation in two of such cases while deciding the revision petitions.
The orders passed by the division bench and the single judge bench were challenged before the Supreme Court by the complainants in the case as well as ED at different points of time.
However, while the first set of cases was listed before a bench led by justice Krishna Murari (who heard some of these matters earlier in 2022 when he sat on a bench headed by former CJI Ramana), another appeal filed by ED was listed before a bench led by justice Ramasubramanian (who authored the judgment in the matter in September 2022).
On Wednesday morning, advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned a contempt plea against the state government on behalf of an NGO, Anti-Corruption Movement. During the mentioning, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Dave appeared for the alleged bribe givers and bribe takers. While solicitor general Tushar Mehta represented ED, senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Balaji Srinivasan appeared for the victims who did not pay bribes.
Dave intervened to complain against the listing of the matters before different benches, submitting the registry must be asked to follow the rules.
After justice Chandrachud said that it is easy for him as a lawyer to criticise anybody, Dave replied that being a judge’s son himself, he respects the judiciary and that his criticism is always objective. The CJI, however, retorted: “Mr Dave, your assessment that your criticism is always objective may itself be subjective.”
Justice Chandrachud concluded the matter by saying that he would look into the matter and take a call on the bench where all the connected cases should go.
