|
| SC stays orders of judge on Dinakaran's decisions |
| Press Trust Of India / Chennai/ New Delhi Jun 16, 2010, 00:50 IST |
|
Ticking off Karnataka High Court judge Justice D V Shylendra Kumar for overstepping “judicial discipline”, the Supreme Court today stayed his interim orders against some administrative decisions of Chief Justice P D Dinakaran.
Backing Justice Dinakaran, the court said though he is not taking up judicial matters but for all practical purposes, he is the Chief Justice and “it is his exclusive prerogative to take administrative decisions including the composition of Benches, rosters and allocation of work to the puisne (inferior in rank) judges”. Justice Dinakaran, whose transfer to another high court has been recommended by the Supreme Court collegium in the wake of corruption and land grab charges against him, has been a target of Justice Kumar.
An impeachment motion against Justice Dinakaran has been initiated in the Rajya Sabha. A vacation Bench comprising Justices Deepak Verma and K S Radhakrishnan observed that the directions passed by the Bench headed by Justice Kumar was in “complete defiance” of the guidelines laid down by it.
“The said orders/directions are in complete defiance of the 1998 judgement of this court,” the Bench said while referring to the verdict in which the guidelines have been laid down for the conduct of the puisne judges in judicial matters. “The directions/guidelines have been given by this court that how the puisne judges of High Courts are required to conduct themselves while dealing with the judicial matters. Such guidelines have not been considered by the division Bench,” the court said.
“Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it fit to stay the interim orders passed by the division Bench,” the court said hoping that “good sense will prevail”.
“Since the matter pertains to judicial discipline, we direct the Secretary General of this court to bring it to the notice of the Chief Justice of India,” the Bench asked the apex court registry to convey its order to the registrar of the Karnataka High Court through telephone and fax.
At the outset, the Bench wanted to know from senior advocate Udaya Hola, appearing for the High Court, about the developments on the issue. “I am part of the system and I have tears in my eyes,” Justice Verma said when Hola made his submission.
In its petition, the Karnataka High Court had complained that Justice Kumar has allegedly “berated” Justice Dinakaran by using “intemperate” language. The petition has also sought quashing of some orders passed by a Bench led by Justice Kumar, who had in the past attacked Justice Dinakaran on his blogs.
It alleged that while hearing a taxustoms matter, a division Bench of Justices Kumar and N Ananda, questioned the administrative decisions taken by Justice Dinakaran and sought information from the Registrar General about the roster of the judges and allocation of work to judges of the principal and circuit benches. While staying the orders, the Bench clarified its today’s direction will not preclude the High Court division Bench from hearing the matter on merit.
“In fact, we are of the concerned opinion that it would be inappropriate for any Bench that any judicial matter be discussed extra judicially,” the Bench observed. The Bench said it has gone into the orders passed by the Bench headed by Justice Kumar in which he has sought some queries and details from the High Court Registrar which, “in our opinion, prima facie does not appear to be relevant to the facts of the case”.
The court also issued notice to the concerned parties and posted the matter for further hearing in July. The High Court, in its petition, alleged that the Bench headed by Justice Kumar even “orally threatened to initiate contempt proceedings” against the Registry if it would not comply with it orders.
The Bench had questioned the decision of the Chief Justice to not list the tax matter on a particular date before the circuit bench at Dharwar where Justice Kumar was presiding it. The Chief Justice had taken a decision that the matter would be heard later when the matter returns to the principal Bench.
In the petition, the High Court had said, “the division Bench has thereafter been summoning records, orders and notifications issued by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court with a view to sit in appeal over the same”. “That apart, they have been berating the Chief Justice in the open court in intemperate language with a view to ensure that the same is printed in the news media,” it had said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Read Business news in |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Content Guide
