After Justice Dinakaran, probe panel in hot water: Forum for Judicial Accountability seeks recusal of Justice Sirpurkar

Bar & Bench News Network

Sep 08, 2010

The probe panel that has been constituted to look into charges of corruption against present Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, P.D. Dinakaran has come in for some heavy criticism from Chennai based Forum of Judicial Accountability.

 

The forum has asked Supreme Court judge, Justice V.S. Sirpurkar to recuse himself for impartial conduct of the proceedings.It has been reported that when Justice Sirpurkar was a judge of the Madras High Court he sat on Division Benches together with Justice Dinakaran. They have also worked together on administrative duties and interacted at several official and social functions.

 

Justice Dinakaran and Justice Sirpurkar’s association continued on a professional and social level even after both were shifted out of the Madras High Court. The forum reports that Justice Dinakaran attended the marriage of Justice Sirpurkar’s daughter in Nagpur and that Justice Sirpurkar also attended Justice Dinakaran’s daughter’s wedding in Bangalore and Chennai subsequently.

 

Convenor of the forum, R. Vaigai in a petition said, "His (Justice Sirpurkar's) friendly association with Justice Dinakaran as narrated ..., gives rise to a reasonable ground to believe that there is a real likelihood of bias and that his neutrality as a Member of the Committee will be affected by his friendship with and personal knowledge /perceptions of Justice Dinakaran, thus impacting the impartiality of the proceedings and its outcome."

 

This isn’t the first time that the forum has protested against the constitution of the probe panel. In January of this year, the forum had protested against the inclusion of Justice Sirpurkar. Senior Counsel, Prashant Bhushan had written to the Vice-President that the VP’s office had erred in appointing Justice Sirpurkar as a member and Chairperson of the probe panel, since it had been Justice Sirpurkar who had recommended Justice Dinakaran’s elevation to the Supreme Court.

 

Last month, Vice-President Hamid Ansari had reminded the probe panel that it had all the powers of a civil court under the Judges Inquiry Act while conducting its investigation. The probe panel had earlier decided it needed additional clarifications to formally frame charges against Justice Dinakaran.

 

The probe panel will next meet on September 19, 2010 to discuss on issues regarding the framing of charges against Justice Dinakaran.

 

Add to My Clips Print this Story Email this Story

 

Facebook LinkedIn MySpace Digg Del.icio.us twitter

Comments(1)
  • 1. "Justice Sirpurkar must rescue himself to upheld the sanctity of enquiry. The facts which are listed above may rise doubts in the mind of common man of this country who are watching the judgement on judges.". Anurag Aggarwal,
Post Your Comment

Name* :

Location :

Email Id :

Comment * :

Notify me when there is a comment


 

The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?

bullets

 

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)

 

 

Thank you. Comments are subject to moderation.