New Delhi, Nov 10 (IANS) In an unusual action, the Supreme Court on Friday axed an order passed by a bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar to set up a constitution bench to hear a plea for a SIT probe into graft allegation involving a retired Orissa High Court judge, amidst high drama involving noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and fellow lawyers.

A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said that the CJI was the “Master of Rolls” and he alone can assign cases to different benches and decide the composition of benches.

After a 90-minute hearing, the bench cited its 1998 judgement that had held that the Chief Justice of a High Court was the master of roll and said that same applied in the case of the top court.

The bench also referred to the convention in this respect.

Having said that the Chief Justice of India being the head of the top court was the “Master of Rolls”, the five-judge bench in its order said that any order passed contrary to this will be “inactive in law and shall not be binding”.

Complaining that he was not being allowed to speak, an emotional Prashant Bhushan told the bench it can do whatever it wanted, as fellow lawyers heckled him while he was leaving.

The hearing that started with Additional Solicitor General P.S. Narasimha addressing the bench first, saw senior lawyers including SCBA president Rupinder Singh Suri, its secretary Gaurav Bhatia, senior counsel Ajit Sinha, Ashok Bhan, Supreme Court Advocate on Record president Gopal Singh, and other lawyers training their guns at Prashant Bhushan for raking up cases hurting the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution.

However, an unrelenting Bhushan reiterated the plea that Chief Justice Misra should not be part of the bench hearing pleas seeking an SIT probe into the role of a retired Orissa High Court judge and pointed fingers at the CJI.

As Bhushan lost his cool in the initial stages of the hearing and levelled allegations against the CJI, Justice Arun Mishra told him that his “conduct was not proper”.

“Mr. Bhushan you conduct is not proper. That is all we can say,” Justice Arun Mishra told Bhushan.

“No condemnation in the court. We are not here for this,” Justice Mishra said as some lawyers sought to condemn the conduct of Bhushan.

As some lawyers wanted the bench to haul up Bhushan for contempt, CJI Misra said, “He is not worth contempt.” However, he remarked that “the court can’t function like this”.

The Chief Justice rejected the suggestion that media be restrained from reporting the proceedings and that it be held in-camera.

“I am not going to pass any order to restrain media. I hold the freedom of speech and expression in the highest regard,” Chief Justice Misra said.

Friday’s order came a day after the two-judge bench headed by Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the Chief Justice of India, ordered the setting up of a five-judge contitution bench to hear on Monday a corruption case involving former Orissa High Court judge, I.M. Quddusi.

Quddusi, an Orissa High Court judge between 2004 and 2010, is alleged to have helped a private medical college to admit students to MBBS courses despite the Supreme Court barring the institutes from doing so.

The judge was arrested in September and is lodged in Tihar Jail here after CBI accused him of guiding the private medical college and assuring its management of favourable settlement of their cases in the Supreme Court.

A petition filed by Supreme Court advocate Kamini Jaiswal on Thursday sought an investigation into the case by a court-monitored Special Investigation Team. The petition was taken up for hearing by the bench headed by Justice Chelameswar.

Jaiswal’s petition was filed even as a plea by the NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms seeking a similar probe in the case was already listed before the bench headed by Justice A.K. Sikri.

The five-judge bench on Friday said the two petitions will be heard by an appropriate bench after two weeks and there will be no more hearing in the case till then.

Earlier in the day, the bench of Justice Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan took exception to the manner in which the second petition by Jaiswal was filed, and was heard by the bench headed by Justice Chelameswar. The bench of Justice Sikri and Justice Bhushan asked advocate Prashant Bhushan as to what was the urgency.

Making it clear that they were not underestimating the seriousness of the matter, the court in its order said that let the appropriate order be passed to tag the petition with the one by advocate Kamini Jaiswal, which was referred to a five-judges constitution bench on Thursday by the bench of Justice Chelameswar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Pleading ignorance about the second petition, Bhushan said that since the allegations were in respect of the matter heard by the bench headed by Chief Justice Misra, he should not have exercised his administrative and judicial authority.

Referring to the FIR filed by the CBI in the matter, Bhushan said, “Whole conspiracy was to bribe the bench hearing the (medical college) matter”. At this, Justice Sikri said that whether the Chief Justice should have dealt with the matter or stayed away should have been left to him.

“The request that the Chief Justice should not deal with the matter should have been made to him. He should have decided,” said Justice Sikri.

Expressing its displeasure, the court on Friday allowed the Supreme Court Bar Association to implead itself in the matter before the five-judges bench.

–IANS
pk/rn/vsc