There may perhaps be in total no doubt that the Chief Justice of India is the grasp of the roster. So, it is not seemingly to dispute the factual reasoning on the back of Chief Justice Dipak Misra’s ruling that no one but he can seize the composition of Benches and allocation of judicial work in the Supreme Court docket. On the other hand, the circumstances wherein he had to insist this authority comprise the skill to seriously diminish the court’s lustre. The scenes witnessed in the court amidst troubling allegations of conceivable judicial corruption are worrisome for their capacity to undermine the high take care of that the judiciary enjoys. Chief Justice Misra selected to follow the letter of the laws, but there stay phenomenal questions about doable war of hobby in his decision to overrule Justice J. Chelameswar’s extremely peculiar say that delineated the composition of a Constitution Bench to hear a writ petition looking out out for a shapely probe into the corruption allegations. It is a fact that in the Prasad Training Belief case, the petitions alleging that some americans, at the side of a retired Orissa High Court docket assume, were plotting to persuade the Supreme Court docket, had been heard by a Bench headed by Chief Justice Misra. On the other hand, it shall be perverse and irresponsible to attribute noxious motives with out compelling evidence. At the same time, by heading the Bench himself, the Chief Justice may perhaps comprise contributed to the thought that he’ll preside over a hearing in his comprise trigger, as a change of leaving it to one other establish of judges to reiterate the factual net site on who has the only real real advise in deciding the roster.
Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most puisne assume, may perhaps comprise handed his say basically based totally on the petitioner’s pronounce that there shall be a war of hobby were the Chief Justice to grab the Bench. But in doing so, he selected to forget the conception that allocation of judicial work is the retain of the Chief Justice. Each justices may perhaps comprise found themselves in a convey wherein laws and strict propriety prevail in now not converge. As for the lawyer-activists enthusiastic, it is one thing to flag corruption, one other to foster the affect that they must seize the judges who will hear them. The fully manner to total the present turmoil in the judicial and factual fraternity is to make your mind up up certain that the Central Bureau of Investigation holds an just probe in the case registered by it. The involvement of serving judges may perhaps fully be a some distance flung probability, but it completely is key to search out out whether or now not the suspected middlemen had any access to them. An heart-broken fallout of the controversy is the thought of a rift amongst the nation’s top judges. To a pair, the charges may perhaps represent an attempt to undermine the judiciary. These perceptions may perhaps restful now not consequence in the sidestepping of the actual self-discipline raised by the CBI’s FIR: the grim probability of the judiciary being at possibility of corruption. Tumult and turmoil may perhaps restful now not overshadow this substantive self-discipline.