BCI lashes out at Chelameswar after his retirement

Agencies
June 25, 2018

New Delhi, Jun 25: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has lashed out against Justice J Chelameswar for his "controversial" and "irrelevant" statements in the media, three days after his retirement as a Supreme Court Judge, saying such comments are liable to be "deprecated" and "cannot be tolerated" by lawyers.

Justice Chelameswar, who demitted office on June 22, had disapproved of the Centre's decision not to elevate Justice K M Joseph to the Supreme Court, terming the action as "not sustainable".

The judge, who had held an unprecedented presser along with three other senior Supreme Court judges in January to highlight the litany of allegations including discrimination in allocation of cases to benches, had also said that the credibility of the highest judiciary was "occasionally" in danger.

Efforts to reach Justice Chelameswar for his comments did not frucitify.

In a statement, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra has criticised the statements of Justice Chelameswar after he demitted the office, and said it was not expected from a person who had held a high post and went against its dignity.

"Self-restraint by the judges of the highest court seems to be a forgotten virtue. They have to prevent themselves from issuing statements without giving any thought to the consequences such statements could entail.

"The manner in which Justice Chelameswar went to the media and gave controversial and irrelevant statements immediately upon retirement, was not expected of a person holding such a high post and was in fact against the dignity of the post he had held.

"Such statements and comments are liable to be deprecated. Such statements cannot be tolerated, accepted or digested by the advocates including the rest of the countrymen," the statement, also signed by four other office-bearers of BCI, said.

The statement said the judge had used a "controversial" word "bench fixing" and pointed out that there were instances in which "a handful of lawyers" had filed matters and mentioned it before him and tried to get it listed.

The BCI said the judge should have raised an objection at that time but did not do so.

The statement said Justice Chelameswar "has resorted to usage of such controversial words like 'bench fixing'. Now if a handful of lawyers of the highest court filed matter/s and mentioned it before (him) and other chosen judges, and tried to get it listed, then that would have been bench fixing. Such instances have been repeated not once but on two-three occasions."

Justice Chelameswar "should have raised an objection at that point of time", but had not done so and "in fact accepted and agreed to hear certain matters himself which led to the beginning of a wrong practice," the BCI alleged.

It also alleged that “the fact that Justice Chelameswar met CPI leader and Rajya Sabha MP D Raja immediately after his press conference, clearly deciphers the mystery and the motive behind the controversial statements being issued" by him, the BCI 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 4,2020

Mar 4: Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on Wednesday that he has decided not to participate in any 'Holi Milan' programme as experts have advised reducing mass gatherings to avoid the spread of coronavirus.

"Experts across the world have advised reducing mass gatherings to avoid the spread of COVID19 Novel Coronavirus. Hence this year, I have decided not to participate in any 'Holi Milan' programme," the PM tweeted.

This year, Holi is on March 10.

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 10,2020

New Delhi, Mar 10: Minutes after Jyotiraditya Scindia submitted his resignation to the party membership to Congress chief Sonia Gandhi, the Congress expelled him for anti-party activities after reports emerged that he had met PM Modi and Amit Shah.

Disgruntled Congress leader Jyotiraditya Scindia met Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday amid indications that he might join hands with the BJP to topple the Madhya Pradesh government.

Sources said Scindia first met Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and then the two leaders met Modi at the prime minister's residence.

Legislators loyal to Scindia, who has been upset with the Congress leadership with his marginalisation in the affairs of the Madhya Pradesh Congress, are likely to quit the party to reduce the Kamal Nath-led government to a minority.

It is likely to be followed by the Bharatiya Janata Party staking claim to form the government in the state.

The Congress President has approved the expulsion of Jyotiraditya Scindia from the Indian National Congress with immediate effect for "anti-party activities," said KC Venugopal, General Secretary Congress.

No person is, nor will be greater than the party: Congress youth wing chief

Indian Youth Congress (IYC) chief Srinivas B V on Tuesday slammed Jyotiraditya Scindia, who has announced his resignation from the primary membership of the Congress, and thanked party chief Sonia Gandhi for expelling the former Guna MP "who was promoting anti-party activities and factionalism".

"The history of 1857 and 1967 was once again repeated," Srinivas B V said, referring to the 1857 Revolt against East India Company and the role of the Scindia royals back then as well as Vijayaraje Scindia's switch from the Congress to the Jana Sangh in 1967.

"I would like to thank Congress president Sonia Gandhiji for taking the strong steps to expel the leader who was promoting anti-party activities and factionalism," the IYC chief said.

"No person is, nor will be greater than the party," 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.
News Network
March 3,2020

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench 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.