LexKAMINI JAISWAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 189 KAMINI JAISWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Writ Petition (Criminal) No.176 of2017) NOVEMBER 14, 2017 [R. K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA AND A.M. KIIANWILKAR, JJ.] Administration of Justice: Writ Petition u/Art. 32 of the Constitution [W.P. (Cr/.) No. 16912017} filed on 8.11.2017 by Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) - Stating that an FIR relating to criminal conspiracy and of taking illegal gratification to influence A B c the outcome of a pending case before Supreme Court revealed a nexus between the middlemen, Hawala dealers and senior public D functionaries including persons in judicial field - The petition was mentioned before Court No.2 and thereafter, it was listed for hearing on 10.11.2017 before a particular Bench - On 9.11.2017 another similar writ petition (present petition) identically worded, was filed by the petitioner (a member of (CJAR) and was mentioned before Court No.2 with a prayer to hear the matter on the same day - The Bench (Court No.2) posted the present petition before itself for hearing on the same day - After hearing, the Bench (Court No.2) decided to place the matter before Constitution Bench which would consist of senior most five Judges of the Court - When the WP (Cr/.) No.169/2017 came up for hearing before another Bench, the Court taking into account the order in the present case, directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for passing appropriate orders - The matter was considered on administrative side by the Chief Justice and he constituted 5-Judge Constitution Bench - The Constitution Bench (constituted by the Chief Justice) E F on 10.11.2017 decided that the Chief Justice is the Master of roster G and no Bench can direct the composition for constitution of a Bench - Thereafter, the Chief Justice constituted 3-Judge Bench to hear the matter on 13.11.2017 - Plea was taken by petitioner that order dated 9.11.2017 (a/locating the matter to 5 senior most Judges) could have been passed under Art.142 of the Constitution and the 189 H 190 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 13 S.C.R. order dated 9.JJ.2017 was binding on other courts in view of Art. 144 and hence could not have been rendered ineffective by order dated 10.11.2017 - Petitioners also took the plea that as the pending matter (order whereof was alleged to be influenced) was heard by the Chief Justice, and by one of the Judges in the present Bench, the matter cannot ~e heard by a Bench constituted by the Chief Justice and that the other Judge should recuse himself from the matter - Held: Arts. 144 or 142 are not applicable in the present case - In case they are attracted, it is decision of Constitution Bench (whereby it decided that Chief Justice is the master of roster) which is binding - It has been held by Constitution Bench that Chief Justice is the master of roster and the present Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice in his administrative capacity - It was highly improper to allege conflict of interest that the Chief Justice should not hear on judicial side or allocate that matter on administrative side - Filing of two successive petitions are a misconceived venture, amounting to fonim hunting and has brought the entire judicial system into disrepute for no good cause - Asking for recusal of a particular Judge from the 1r1atter is another attempt to fonim hunting and also amounts to contempt of Court - Making such scandalous remarks also tan/amounts to interference with administration of Justice - Constitution of India - Arts. 142, 144 and 145 - Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Contempt of Court. Advocates: Petition filed by advocate in his/her personal capacity - Making scandalous remarks against judiciary - Held: Making scandalous rem&rks ten/amounts to interference with administration of justice - An advocate cannot escape the responsibility on the ground that he/she drafted the same in his/her personal capacity. Maxim: "nemo judex in causa sua" - Applicability and scope of - G Discussed. H Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. It cannot be said that this Court cannot hear the matter as the Bench has been formed by the Chief Justice of India in exercise of his administrative power. That issue stands KAMIN! JAISWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 191 concluded by the decision of 5-Judge Bench of this Court. The A Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly held that the Chie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.