Those top judges shouldn’t have brought the issue to the public, says Santosh Hegde

Agencies
January 13, 2018

Bengaluru, Jan 13: Former Supreme Court judge N Santosh Hegde today "wholly" condemned the action of four senior judges in going public over internal matters of the judiciary, saying it affected the reputation of the institution and may amount to contempt of court.

Questioning their action, he said internal matters of the judiciary should not have been brought to the public for discussion because neither the public nor the government or the executive can give any relief to them. "I wholly condemn the press meet yesterday held by the four judges of the Supreme Court. My complaint is these things should not have been publicly discussed, consequent to which the reputation of the judiciary has been affected," he told PTI.

In an unprecedented move in the country's judicial history, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph had held a press conference yesterday and mounted a virtual revolt against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, questioning him on the 'selective' allocation of cases and certain judicial orders passed by him.

Hegde, a former Lokayukta of Karnataka, said their action would not benefit anybody other than drawing public attention. He said institutions like the judiciary survive on the confidence of the people. "Once the confidence of the people is lost, the institution will be useless," he said. Agreeing that the judges' intention was to 'bring the muck out of the system, he disapproved of their approach as it would set a new precedent where judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court would start bringing their differences into the public domain.

On whether their action was liable for impeachment, Hegde said he does not want to go to that extent, though he felt it can be possible, given the fact that a Calcutta High Court judge was impeached for contempt of court. He, however, felt that their action may amount to contempt of court. "Yes, it may amount to contempt of court but I am not talking about that...I don't want to take the issue to another direction. I am only questioning the action of the four judges who came out saying that the Chief Justice is giving cases according to his whims and fancies. "Yes, that is the jurisdiction given to him. And why not? That bench before which the case is posted does not have the only person. There are two other judges there." "That means you are suspecting the three judges. Let us not denigrate the institution," said Hegde.

Comments

s
 - 
Sunday, 14 Jan 2018

oh should they have gone to govt or police? to get killed?

Abu Muhammad
 - 
Sunday, 14 Jan 2018

The contempt of Court may be punishable, but what about the Contempt of Judicial system and contempt of Justice by CJI? It will never be questioned rather rewarded. Atleast now public come to know that Judiciary too infected with.............virus. Public had the doubt, now four senior most judges confirmed it. God save India!!! SATYA MEVA JAYATE!!

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 6,2020

New Delhi, Jun 6: With the coronavirus pandemic showing no signs of abating, it seems unlikely that Muslims from India will be able to undertake the Hajj pilgrimage this year.

However, the government will take a final decision on the matter only after Saudi Arabia makes its position on hosting the pilgrimage clear.

A circular issued by the Hajj Committee of India on Friday said only a few weeks are left for the preparatory work in India for Hajj 2020, yet the Saudi authorities have not communicated any further development regarding the pilgrimage.

"In view of the several inquiries received and concerns expressed over uncertainty over Hajj 2020, it has been decided by the Hajj Committee of India that, those pilgrims who desire to cancel their Hajj journey this year, their 100 per cent amount paid so far will be refunded without any deductions," the circular issued by Hajj Committee of India CEO Maqsood Ahmed Khan said.

"Coronavirus cases are increasing in Saudi Arabia and two lakh people have to go from here. We had made preparations, but now there is very little time left. We are waiting for an official word from Saudi Arabia," a top source said.

In response to a question, the source said, "This time, it is unlikely that people will be able to undertake Hajj from India."

Uncertainty has been looming large over this year's Hajj in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and though Saudi Arabia has not made a decision on whether the annual pilgrimage will be held or not, it did ask Muslims to delay their bookings till there is more clarity.

The bilateral annual Hajj 2020 agreement between India and Saudi Arabia was signed last December. In 2020, a total of 2 lakh Indian Muslims were expected to perform Hajj.

Over 95,000 COVID-19 cases and more than 600 deaths have been reported in Saudi Arabia due to the coronavirus pandemic, according to Johns Hopkins University data.

Some countries have decided not to send their people for Hajj this time. The most prominent among these is Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.

The Hajj 2020 is proposed in the period between late July and early August.

The Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam which every Muslim is required to complete at least once in their lifetime if they are healthy enough and have the means to do so.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 8,2020

Mumbai, Feb 8: Anil Ambani, the brother of Asia’s richest man has pleaded poverty in his dispute with three Chinese banks seeking $680 million in defaulted loans.

“The value of my investments has collapsed,” Anil Ambani said, according to a court filing by the banks in a London lawsuit.

“The current value of my shareholdings is down to approximately $82.4m and my net worth is zero after taking into account my liabilities. In summary, I do not hold any meaningful assets which can be liquidated for the purposes of these proceedings.”

The lawsuit was filed by three state-controlled Chinese banks which argue that they provided a loan of $925 million to Ambani’s Reliance Communications Ltd. in 2012 with the condition that he personally guarantee the debt. The comments were disclosed on Friday as Ambani sought to avoid depositing hundreds of millions of dollars with the court ahead of a trial.

The embattled Indian tycoon says that while he agreed to give a non-binding “personal comfort letter,” he never gave a guarantee tied to his personal assets -- an “extraordinary potential personal liability.”

The 60-year-old is the brother of Mukesh Ambani, who’s worth $56.5 billion and is the wealthiest man in Asia. Anil, on the other hand, has seen his personal fortune dwindle over recent years, losing his billionaire status. His Reliance Communications filed for bankruptcy last year.

The banks asked Judge David Waksman to force Ambani to put up $656 million into the court’s account.

Representatives for Ambani’s Reliance Group said they couldn’t immediately comment. They said the group will issue a statement once the court issues the final order.

Ambani’s lawyer, Robert Howe, said the court shouldn’t order his client to make a payment he can’t make. The tycoon argues that an order requiring him to do so would hinder his ability to defend himself in the case, Howe said.

“There’s no evidence of some giant pot of gold that he can pull $1 million, let alone $10 million, let alone $100 million,” Howe said.

Bankim Thanki, an attorney representing Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China, said in a filing that Ambani’s statements are “plainly a yet further opportunistic attempt to evade his financial obligations to the lenders.”

Ambani was caught up in another legal wrangle last year when India’s Supreme Court threatened him with prison after Reliance Communications failed to pay Rs 5.5 billion ($77 million) to Ericsson AB’s Indian unit. The judges gave him a month to find the funds, and his brother, Mukesh, stepped in just in time to make the payment.

Anil said in a filing that he recognized that the judge would want to know if he could satisfy any order to put up funds from outside resources, including his family.

“I can confirm that I have made enquiries but I am unable to raise any finance from external sources,” he said. Judge Waksman had said in an earlier ruling that he believed Ambani’s defence would be shown to be “opportunistic and false.”

Ambani’s lawyer told the judge that as a result of the comments the tycoon’s relatives were unlikely to lend any funds.

There is a “very substantial risk they will never get it back,” Howe said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 26,2020

Mangaluru, Mar 26: About 2,771 people are home-quarantined in the wake of the novel coronavirus in Dakshina Kannada district here, Deputy Commissioner said on Wednesday.

"Meanwhile, about 20 people have completed the mandated 28 days of quarantine, DC Sindhu B Rupesh said in a statement here.

More than 38,000 people from the district have been screened and seven are admitted and are under observation, he added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.