Bar & Bench News Network
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.
|
- 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,
Related Stories
- Victory for Forum of Judicial Accountability: Justice Sirpurkar recuses himself from Dinakaran probe panel
- Justice Alam replaces Sirpurkar in Dinakaran probe panel
- Justice Sirpurkar to head Dinakaran impeachment panel
- Dinakaran din; after P.P. Rao, Justice Sirpurkar's turn
- SC allows contempt plea by Salve; Prashant Bhushan faces contempt; calls for impeachment of Justice Dinakaran
- Justice Katju's recusal brings RIL-BPCL dispute back to square one after six years in SC
- Infosys' Mohandas Pai to decide on implementation of the Quasi-Judicial order, Justice Verma upset on Sebi's 'Non Est' order
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)










