Bar & Bench News Network
Vice-President Hamid Ansari has reminded the committee investigating charges of corruption against Justice Dinakaran that it has all the powers of a Civil Court under Section 5 of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 (Act).
Section 5 of the Act states that a committee appointed under the Act has the powers of a civil court in summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; requiring the discovery and production of documents; receiving evidence on oath; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents and such other matters as may be prescribed.
The Rajya Sabha Secretariat issued the response based on a clarification sought by the committee. The committee had last met on August 1, 2010 where it had concluded that additional clarifications needed to be sought to frame charges against the impeachment motion. These clarifications maybe sought from MPs who had signed the motion against Justice Dinakaran.
Since seeking additional information or clarification from MPs might throw up issues regarding parliamentary privileges as well as procedural issues, the committee had sought a formal response from the Rajya Sabha. Any further information that is now going to be sought from MPs or any other person will be now entered as evidence. Further, any information given by MPs can now be cross-examined.
The committee, which is headed by Supreme Court Justice V.S. Sirpurkar, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court J.S. Khehar and Senior Advocate P.P. Rao are investigating charges of possessing wealth disproportionate to known sources of income, unlawfully securing five housing board plots in the name of his wife and two daughters, illegal encroachment on government and public property to deprive Dalits. The charges also include abuse of judicial office.
Justice Dinakaran who has denied all the charges against him had repeatedly refused to go on leave following the allegations which had disrupted the Indian judiciary for a considerable period of time. The President finally transferred him to the Sikkim High Court earlier this month. It now remains to be seen how soon the course of justice regarding Justice Dinakaran’s fate will take.
|
Be the first to post a comment 
Related Stories
- No Supreme Court for Dinakaran, for now
- Bar vs. Bench in Karnataka High Court: Protest against Dinakaran turns violent as advocates go on a rampage and assault HC judge
- Dinakaran problem continues: probe panel reconstituted
- Justice Dinakaran: ‘To Court or not to Court’
- 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
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)










