Matter far too serious to be left to Govt, Bhushan argues in CJAR petition

The Supreme Court yesterday reserved its verdict in the petition filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms (CJAR) seeking an SIT probe into the controversial medical college matter..A Bench of Justices RK Agrawal, Arun Mishra and AM Khanwilkar heard the petition filed by CJAR..Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that it was imperative that an SIT headed by a retired Chief Justice of India be formed in order to preserve and protect the integrity of the judiciary..He apprised the Bench of the FIR filed by the CBI and reiterated that such a sensitive issue should not be left in the hands of any executive body, for it may be misused to tarnish the reputation of the judiciary..It was his argument that such a sensitive issue which may involve the judges of the Supreme Court as well as the CJI should be investigated by the SIT..Attorney General KK Venugopal stated that the submissions made by Bhushan are repetitive and very similar to the submissions in the earlier petition filed by Kamini Jaiswal..The submissions of Venugopal were supported by the Bench, which termed the plea as “90% verbatim”. The Bench reminded Bhushan that the order in the earlier petition has dealt with the issue..Bhushan refuted the stance of the Court and said that the issue in the matter was not squarely decided, before proceeding to make his submissions..During the course of hearing, the Bench quizzed Bhushan on the affidavit submitted by him. They asked,.“Where is the name of the secretary? What was the source of knowledge?”.Bhushan replied,. “I will mention it all if the Court so desires.”.The Bench proceeded to reserve its judgment in the matter, and is likely to deliver the same this Friday..On the back of the furore sparked by the events of November 9 and 10, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petition filed by Kamini Jaiswal seeking an investigation into the matter relating to opening of medical colleges..In its order, the same Bench that is hearing the petition filed by CJAR noted that great damage had been done to the institution by filing the second petition, and that unnecessary doubt was raised against the judiciary.