Supreme Court dismisses PIL seeking FIR against former judge C K Prasad

The PIL alleged that Justice Prasad had passed an order in a case so as to favour his kin.

Written by Utkarsh Anand | New Delhi | Published: April 11, 2015 3:50 am
Supreme Court The PIL alleged that Justice Prasad had passed an order in a case so as to favour his kin. (Source: Express Archive)

Declining to open the “dangerous doors” to let litigants make sweeping charges against judges for passing orders, the Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a PIL seeking registration of an FIR against its former judge and Chairman of Press Council of India, Justice C K Prasad, over some alleged illegal orders issued by him during his tenure.

A bench led by Justice Dipak Misra nixed the petition by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, stating there was a “statutory protection” accorded to the judges even if they pass some orders, which were arguably vague or absurd.

Meanwhile, a four-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India H L Dattu has Thursday dismissed the curative petitions, seeking a reconsideration of the order passed by Justice Prasad on the judicial side. “An order may be absurd or improper or even in violation of some rules, the real question is whether an order by a High Court or Supreme Court judge can be questioned like this. Please try and understand the inherent dangers of your arguments… it will open dangerous doors if we allow anybody to say anything against anyone… it is not to be allowed in a democracy,” the bench told senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, who appeared for his son Prashant. Prashant was not present during the proceeding.

Shanti Bhushan had argued that irrespective of a person being a former judge, this court must allow the process of law to operate in the wake of the alleged “gross misconduct” by him in issuing orders in a case despite knowing his kin were involved in the matter and that the case was being heard by a different bench.

He said an FIR should be lodged against the former judge and steps should also be taken to remove him as PCI chairman.

The former law minister further cited a letter written by Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave to the Chief Justice of India, complaining about the alleged judicial misconduct.

The court, however, said it would not pay heed to any letter written by the Bar Association’s president and that the petition deserved to be dismissed on merit.

Questioning the locus of Prashant, the bench held that any person aggrieved by the contentious orders could file an application for review or take recourse to the curative petition or any other remedy available to him in law.

“But the petitioner cannot be allowed to make such a prayer invoking the conceptual facet of PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,” it noted.

 

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

  1. V
    Vijeet
    Apr 11, 2015 at 5:34 pm
    India's judiciary, police and medical fraternity should be cleaned up for the sake of the common man. Does any party or politician have the courage to do it? Is there hope for us citizens?
    (0)(0)
    Reply
    1. V
      Vijeet
      Apr 11, 2015 at 5:27 pm
      The true reason why cases take so long in India is because judges waste a lot of time. One has to go through the process to know it. Judges should be made accountable or else the people of India will take matters in their own hands one day.
      (0)(0)
      Reply
      1. H
        Harshvardhan
        Apr 10, 2015 at 9:02 pm
        Shame on this court! You hold everyone accountable but yourself! Are you God that you cant commit crime?
        (0)(0)
        Reply
        1. Naved Yar Khan
          Apr 12, 2015 at 11:27 am
          Substantial Question of law arises -Whether in the context of the provisions under section 219 Indian Penal Code & various provisions of POC Act,the SC bench who has pronounced this decision liable for prosecution under the aforementioned provisions?
          (0)(0)
          Reply
          1. Mahesh Naik Mahesh Naik
            Apr 10, 2015 at 5:43 pm
            Mutual bootom maging..!
            (0)(0)
            Reply
            1. Load More Comments