,
14 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Reflections on the allegations against the CJI & the hearing yesterday.
1. First on the hearing yesterday. If it is indeed the Solicior General that mentioned and sought a special sitting, did he mention the matter in his capacity as SG or on instruction from the central government? If so, which officer instructed the SG to mention?
2.If there was indeed a listing as a suo motu PIL writ petition(instead of a contempt petition), against the journals that carried the allegations, why was the contents of the publication, the motives of the publication a matter of discussion in the court proceedings?
3. The allegations are against the CJI personally. Should the CJI have presided the bench? Or even constituted it?
4. Once the CJI actually presided the hearing yesterday, should the record of proceedings have been falsified to indicate that the bench consisted of only Justices Arun Mishra & Sanjeev Khanna?
5. Did the Attorney General and the Solicitor General appear and argue on their own or under instruction from the Union Government?
6. Given that the Solicitor General and the Attorney General have made these comments in favour of the CJI on the merits of the allegations against him personally, can they continue to appear before his Court?
7. Shouldn't the complainant and the four journals who published the contents of the Affidavit have been made party to the proceedings and their sides heard?
8. Last but not the least, when the CJI was remarking how "*They* could not catch me by my money," who did he have in mind? What is he hinting at?
9. Next on the allegations. Should journals that published the allegations have independently verified the claims in the Affidavit? (contd.)
10. Is it sufficient to merely verify the existence of the affidavit, satisfy oneself of its remarkable consistency and credibility and to carry the Supreme Court's response to the affidavit?
11. The stated affidavit had more than fifty multi-sentence paragraphs, there are several facts that can be independently cross-verified, prior to publication. Should the journals have made it clear whether or not such verification had been undertaken?
12. Was a 24-hour ultimatum to the Chief Justice of India too tight considering that the affidavit was a fairly detailed one and in a matter such as this, the CJI ought to be given reasonable time to respond in detail?
13. Should the standards of pre-publication journalistic due diligence in general be different and higher in the case of allegations against sitting judges - considering that judges have no proper forum of defence other than in parliament during impeachment proceedings?
