Bar&Bench News Network
The probe panel set up by Vice President Hamid Ansari to probe allegations of corruption and land grabbing against the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice P.D. Dinakaran [pictured], has been reconstituted following the elevation of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice A.R. Dave to the Supreme Court.
The Judges Inquiry Act, 1968, stipulates that the probe panel must consist of a Supreme Court judge, the Chief Justice of a High Court and an eminent jurist. The Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court, Justice J.S. Khehar is expected to take over the post vacated by Justice Dave.
The other two members of the panel consist of Supreme Court judge, Justice V.S. Sirpurkar who heads the panel and Senior Counsel P.P. Rao. Their inclusion in the panel was met with criticism due to the close relationship that they allegedly share with the accused judge.
While the probe panel which was set up by the Vice President following the admission of an impeachment motion by 75 members of the Rajya Sabha in December of last year is yet to begin its inquiry into the matter, it has met on a few occasions to work out the logistics and other modalities.
The Dinakaran issue which rocked the country’s judiciary last year shows no signs of dying down. It all started with the recommendation of the judge’s elevation to the Supreme Court which was vehemently opposed by several eminent jurists of the legal fraternity including Senior Counsels Fali Nariman, Shanti Bhushan and Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court.
With Justice Dinakaran refusing to go on leave and ensuing moves to transfer him to far flung high courts which called protests set off a virtual musical chairs amongst the various judges of the country. After a lull in this matter, it remains to be seen whether this latest development in the Dinakaran matter will set off a new series of debates.
|
- 1. "Hey!Justice Shylendra Kumar has not opposed elevation of J. Dinakaran to the Supreme Court any where publicly!The news that you link to and what I find from other sources is that J. Shylendra Kumar and other judges of HC convened a meeting to protest against J. Dinakaran's move of abstaining from work while not tendering resignation or going on leave, this hampered the functioning of HC.". Ravi, Bangalore
- 2. "Mr.Dinkarans fate may be followed Rathods fate on oneday.Letus give moral support to fighters."". Srinivasrav Kandaala, Andhrapradesh
Related Stories
- After Justice Dinakaran, probe panel in hot water: Forum for Judicial Accountability seeks recusal of Justice Sirpurkar
- Victory for Forum of Judicial Accountability: Justice Sirpurkar recuses himself from Dinakaran probe panel
- Justice Alam replaces Sirpurkar in Dinakaran probe panel
- And the Dinakaran debate continues...
- Government says no to Dinakaran's elevation; SC collegium continues to contemplate
- Justice Sirpurkar to head Dinakaran impeachment panel
- Dinakaran probe committee told that it has civil court powers
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










