On Patna bench, SC reprieve for Laloo

The focus now shifts to the Patna High Court where Acting Chief Justice Nagendra Rai is due tomorrow to set up a two-member bench that will deal with Laloo’s petition against the Governor’s sanction.

On May 6, Rai had passed a nine-page order recording Laloo’s contention that the apex court did not have the power to choose the two High Court judges who were to hear his petition.

When Rai’s order was brought to its notice, the Supreme Court said that it agreed with Laloo’s contention before the high court that the prerogative of constituting the bench rested with the acting Chief Justice and not the Supreme court.

‘‘Now, let the Chief Justice fix a bench. We have no problem. We are not interested in one or the other judge,’’ Variava’s bench said, adding that Laloo could well have moved the apex court directly instead of going first to the High Court.

Since the Supreme Court readily conceded the larger issue of jurisdiction, it did not have to deal with Laloo’s application against the inclusion of Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad on the High Court bench.

In fact, for two consecutive years, benches headed by Justice Variava retracted orders passed on April 26 in high-profile cases. Last year, it was again on April 26 that a two-member bench headed by Justice Variava hit the headlines by issuing a notice on a petition against an unprecedented strike by judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Following up on that notice, Justice Variava’s bench directed the High Court to submit all papers related to the strike as the petition ‘‘addresses itself to a need to lay down guidelines pertaining to judicial propriety and is thus a matter of great public interest.’’

After the High Court submitted the strike-related papers, Justice Variava’s bench took a U-turn on December 3 and dismissed the petition as ‘‘infructuous.’’ Reason: the apex court apparently realised only then that the judges had resumed work within 24 hours.

‘‘This Court had issued notice on 26th April, 2004 without noticing,’’ the bench said, ‘‘that by that time prayer (b) of the Writ Petition had become infructuous.’’ The prayer in question was for a direction to all the striking judges to return to work.

In Laloo’s case, another bench headed by Justice Variava today retracted its April 26, 2005 order in response to the minister’s contention that it could not have decided the composition of any Patna High Court bench as that was the prerogative of the Chief Justice of that High Court.

The bench glossed over the circumstances that had provoked it on April 26 to bypass the High Court Chief Justice: the fact that two consecutive benches backed off from deciding Laloo’s petition after concluding the hearings.

On March 17, Justice Variava had to issue a ‘‘clarification order’’ to dispel the impression created by an earlier statement by him that a judge of the Patna High Court had tried to ‘‘influence’’ him at Laloo’s behest.

‘‘The person concerned has since clarified to me that the enquiry was just an academic inquiry,’’ Justice Variava said. ‘‘I am satisfied that the explanation is correct and my original inference that there was an attempt to influence me was wrong.’’

Since the Supreme Court case has now been adjourned to July 25, the Government has gained more time to decide whether it should appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal exonerating Laloo of the charge of having undisclosed income and cancelling penalties of Rs 40 lakh.

In the earlier hearing on April 26, the Supreme Court had taken exception to the manner in which Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran had advised the I-T Department against filing an appeal in Laloo’s case.