SC questions Dinakaran for delay in seeking recusal of Rao

Justice Dinakaran,61,pleaded that one of the three members of the committee,senior advocate P P Rao,should be recused as he had campaigned against his elevation to the Supreme Court which was later put on hold.

He said there is “reasonable” apprehension of bias against him with the presence of Rao on the panel.

The committee,however,refuted the charge of possible bias and alleged the judge is trying to “jeopardise” the inquiry against him by seeking recusal of Rao so late.

“The committee is of the view that recusal of any member at this stage would surely jeopardise its working,” senior advocate U U Lalit said adding the Judge had earlier made allegation against some officers who were probing against him he never said anything against Rao.

“There were umpteen number of opportunities for the petitioner when he could have raised the objection but there was not a whisper from his side for 16 months,” he said.

He said there is a “monumental” task before the committee which has to be finished by June 23 and recusal of one member would scuttle the process.

“6,300 pages of documents have been collected and there are fourteen charges against him including amassing wealth beyond known sources of income and indulging in benami transaction. For 16 months,he did not do anything. Stage of objection is crucial and it is not bona fide,” Lalit said.

He said the plea for recusal of the member of the panel cannot be for “ulterior motive” and should not be “fanciful”.

Senior counsel and former Additional Solicitor General Amrendra Saran,appearing for Dinakaran,said the objection can be raised at any stage and there was delay on his part because documents were not supplied to him by the panel.

“Irrespective of whether it was objected at the first stage or not when there is reasonable apprehension,then it must be taken into consideration,” he said adding there is no haste in concluding the inquiry within three months and the tenure of panel can be extended.

When the Bench said Dinakaran could have raised objection in January 2010 to the Vice President when the committee was constituted,Saran said passage of time cannot be a ground to raised objection and the crux of the issue which has to be determined was “whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias against a member or not”.

Saran pointed out that Rao was a party to the resolution passed in November 2009 by the Bar Association of India asking erstwhile Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan not to elevate Dinakaran to the apex court due to various charges of corruption and judicial misconduct against him.

The day’s proceeding also generated heat briefly when on a submission by another counsel of Dianakaran,the committee’s advocate U U Lalit took strong exception.

Lalit,who is assisting the Committee as a Special Public Prosecutor,objected to the submission of senior advocate Basava Prabhu Patil that he (Lalit) deviated from his role and assisted the panel in framing charges against Dinakaran.

Lalit said if that was the case he would prefer to recuse himself as the counsel for the panel.

However,the bench pacified him saying “there is no specific prayer on this”.

Patil is appearing for Dinakaran who has filed another petition alleging the panel has exceeded its term of reference in framing charges against him.

“Framing of charges has to be done on the basis of notice of motion (of Rajya Sabha) and the committee cannot beyond the notice of motion,” he submitted.

The hearing will resume on Tuesday.

The apex court had on April 29 stayed the probe by the panel after Dinakaran expressed apprehension of a biased inquiry by it in view of Rao’s presence in the panel.

It had also asked the committee,headed by Justice Aftab Alam of the Supreme Court and also Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J S Khehar,to respond to the judge’s plea.

Dinakaran had early this week moved the apex court against the ongoing probe against him by the Upper House panel,contending it has exceeded its jurisdiction in probing charges of judicial misconduct and corruption against him.

He had alleged that the panel has expanded the ambit of the probe beyond what was initially adopted by the Rajya Sabha motion.

On Dinakaran’s plea,the apex court had issued a notice to the panel seeking its stand on the plea.