Updated: March 4, 2017 2:49:24 am
The Supreme Court on Friday took strong exception to activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan questioning its approach regarding public interest litigations (PILs) and asked him whether he wanted a “super agency over and above” the top court.
“Who are you to ask? If there is something, the parties concerned will approach us or hire you as a counsel. You are a private person who has no authority to ask question. Whenever there is something substantial, we will pass directions. You point out if a serious fraud has been committed. You are asking for a super agency to control all such wrongs,” said a bench led by Chief Justice of India J S Khehar.
Watch What Else is Making News
The bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and S K Kaul, was hearing a PIL by NGO Humanity Salt Lake, which had sought investigation into banned chit fund schemes. SEBI had informed the court that it has already referred to other appropriate agencies over 1,500 cases of ponzi schemes for further probe since their investigation did not fall under its purview.
Subscriber Only Stories
Taking SEBI’s submissions on record, the bench observed that nothing more remained to be heard in the PIL since cases were already being investigated.
As the court proceeded to dispose of the matter, Bhushan, representing the NGO, alleged that this approach would render the jurisdiction of PILs, devised to help the poor, “meaningless”.
Bhushan’s statement did not go down well with the bench. “The investigations have already been transferred to other agencies which are beyond the jurisdiction of SEBI. These are responsible agencies. What else do you want? A super agency above the Supreme Court, the President, what is the solution?”
The bench declined his request to keep the petitions pending and disposed of it.
📣 Join our Telegram channel (The Indian Express) for the latest news and updates
- The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.