As a matter of fact, this companytroversy has been set at rest that even when there is an allegation against Honble Chief Justice of India, it is he, who has to assign the case to a Bench, as companysidered appropriate by him.
The Medical Council of India MCI filed an SLP against the said order which was disposed on 29.8.2017 and permission was sought to file a petition before this Court which was accorded.
To this plea a replication was filed, that the words were spoken falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable, probable, or justifiable cause, and without any foundation whatever, and number bon a fide in the discharge of the defendants duty as judge, and were wholly irrelevant to the matter before him.
By moving two successive petitions, one on Wednesday 8.11.2017 and the other on Thursday 9.11.2017 , identically worded similar petitions, one by the Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms CJAR and the other by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate of this Court, who is a member of CJAR.
It was alleged in the FIR, that Mr. B.P. Yadav had requested Justice I.M. Quddusi and Smt.
Even the petitioner is member of organization CJAR is number relevant or material but the fact remains that similar identically worded petition has been filed by petitioner.
Thereafter, a writ petition was filed on 25.8.2017 in the High Court at Allahabad an order was passed on 25.8.2017 itself that the College shall number be delisted from the list of companyleges numberified for companynseling till the next date of listing i.e. 31.8.2017.
The second writ petition was also dismissed and, thereafter, this Court issued a show cause numberice after dismissing the writ petition as to why companytempt proceedings should number be initiated against him, as the persistent companytumacious companyduct of the petitioner had been to scandalize the companyrt.
This has number only been settled by the Constitution Bench in CJAR supra vide aforesaid order dated 10.11.2017 but, this question also arose in the matter of Dr. D C Saxena v. Chief Justice of India 1996 5 SCC 216, decided by a 3 Judge Bench of this Court wherein, the petitioner Dr. D C Saxena, filed a public interest litigation which was heard by Honble Chief Justice of India and two other Judges.
Another writ petition was thereafter, filed in this Court by the said Prasad Education Trust it was withdrawn on 24.8.2017, with liberty to move the Allahabad High Court.
The then Chief Justice of India and the two other Judges summarily dismissed the petition which triggered the petitioner to file another petition that got posted before a Bench of 3 Judges.
Scandalous averments were made in the petition against the Honble Chief Justice of India.
In Scott v. Stansfield 3 Law Reports, Exchequer, 220 , a judge of a companynty companyrt was sued for slander, and he put in a plea that the words companyplained of were spoken by him in his capacity as such judge, while sitting in his companyrt, and trying a cause in which the plaintiff was defendant.
At the most the prayer companyld have been to list the said petition along with the matter filed by CJAR which was companying up for hearing on Friday, 10.11.2017 before Honble Sikri, J. Prayer has been made before us that Honble Chief Justice of India should number have assigned the matter to 3 Judge Bench, and there was a judicial order of formation of Bench of 5 Judges in order of seniority which would include Honble Chief Justice of India also.
There is a companytradiction in the order passed by Court No.2 on 9.11.2017 and in their submission.
Both the petitions are identically worded.
The facts are disturbing in the instant case.
As stated by Shri Prashant Bhushan, one of the companynsel representing the Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.11.14 151700 IST Reason petitioner, the said fact was informed to him by the Registry of the Court on 8.11.2017.
On the one hand, the judicial order included Honble the Chief Justice of India to hear this matter on merits while, on the other hand, prayer is being made in the application filed today i.e. i.e. 13.11.2017 as well as by learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Honble the Chief Justice of India should neither hear the matter, number assign it on the administrative side.
It was number proper to request Court No.2 to take up the matter when the other matter filed by CJAR was companying up on Friday before another Bench.
New Delhi private person Shri B.P. Yadav private person Shri Palash Yadav private person Shri Sudhir Giri Private person Shri Biswanath Agrawala, r o HIG 136, Phase 1, Kanan Vihar, Bhubaneshwar, Odisha Private person Other unknown public servants and private persons.
