Friday, Apr 19, 2024 | Last Update : 01:49 PM IST
CJAR files complaint on CJI in medical scam case
Prashant Bhushan seeks ‘in-house-probe’.
New Delhi: The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR), through lawyer Prashant Bhushan, has sought an “in-house-probe” against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in the Lucknow medical college scam.
Mr Bhushan sent copies of his complaint to the four senior judges — J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph as well as to Justice A.K. Sikri, who is sixth in the rank. Signed by Mr Bhushan in his capacity as the convener of the CJAR, the complaint calls for an inquiry against the chief justice for what Bhushan calls “various allegations of misconduct”.
The complaint says, “The Central Bureau of Investigation’s First Information Report makes allegations that the entire conspiracy and planning was to bribe and influence apex court judges who are dealing with the Prasad medical trust case. The bench was clearly headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. In these circumstances, he was an interested party and could not have dealt with this case either on the judicial side or the administrative side by way of assigning a particular bench to hear this case.” The complaint stated that though there was no conclusive evidence of Justice Misra’s involvement in the conspiracy, a thorough investigation was necessary. “These matters have tarnished the reputation of the court and have brought the judiciary into disrepute,” Mr Bhushan said and added that the issue needed to be dealt with “swiftly”.
The complaint was filed under the court’s “in-house” procedure for investigating complaints against high court or Supreme Court judges. Bhushan said that the judge should examine the complaint next in seniority to the chief justice, or by a Collegium of senior judges.
The scam involves a medical college run by the Prasad Education Trust. The Medical Council of India had denied the trust permission to operate the college, but a middleman allegedly assured the trust that the judiciary would allow it to run the institute. The trust then allegedly paid the middleman to facilitate this.
