By Vineet Malik | May 20, 2023 | Toronto, Canada
Legal Fraternity in India praises outgoing Supreme Court (SC) Judge despite condemnation received for corrupt practices actuated by oblique motive in breach of governing principles of law
Last year in February, The Revelation reported an exclusive story on how a Two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India presided by Justices Kuttiyil Mathew (KM) Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha allegedly shielded the contemptuous Trial Court Judge in contravention of settled law.
In 2021, the petitioner Manubhai Hargovandas Patel, 68, an entrepreneur based in Mumbai shook the entire judiciary when Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph issued notice to Magistrate Ankush Pundlikrao Khanorkar for corruption.
After a gap of 11 months, Two-judge bench presided by Justices KM Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha dropped the notice issued against Khanorkar in contravention of the settled law.
What does the Settled Law says on a “Concurrence of Majority Judges viewed as Judgment of the Court under Article 145 (5) of the Constitution of India
In the matter of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and another vs. State of Maharashtra and another in 2004, a Five-judge bench of the SC held “A decision delivered by a bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent bench of lesser or coequal strength.”
In another recent verdict delivered by the SC, a Five-judge bench of the Constitutional bench in the matter of Trimurti Fragrances (P) Ltd. vs. Gov’t of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi in 2022 yet again clarified and held “The judgment of a Seven-judge bench delivered with 4-3 majority will prevail over Five-judge bench judgment even as pronounced unanimously.
The Court’s premise was based on Article 145 (5) of the Constitution of India.
Mumbai based anti-corruption crusader K V J Rao says “Its high time for the Honorable Apex Court to introspect given the fact that a common man reposes faith in the judiciary and the rule of law which cannot be subverted by some of the oblique judicial officers for their narrow gains and personal ego.”
Misconduct by a Judge for Ruling an Order against the Provisions of Law can lead to punishment of Compulsory Retirement – No Direct Evidence is Necessary
In the matter of R.R Parekh vs. High Court of Gujarat in 2016, the SC held “A judge passing an order against provisions of law in order to help a party is said to have been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice – breach of the governing principles of law or procedure by a judge is indicative that a judicial officer has been actuated by an oblique motive or corrupt practice – no direct evidence is necessary. A charge of misconduct against a judge has to be established on a preponderance – Punishment of compulsory retirement directed.”
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud was part of Justice Joseph’s farewell ceremony that took place two days back in New Delhi. CJI praised Justice Joseph for inheriting integrity from his father, a retired judge of the SC..
Attorney-General for India R. Venkatramani said that “The institution and the bar were indebted to Justice Joseph.”
Senior Advocate Anitha Shenoy praised Justice Joseph’s commitment to social justice.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi called Justice Joseph as an asset and resonated on his work ethic.
Comments