A brief about the CJAR Petition

On November 8th began the most eventful proceedings in the Apex court of the
country. A constitutional bench led by CJI Dipak Misra, heard the petition which
highlighted the corruption in Indian judiciary. The petition contained allegations of
corruption, gratification and criminal conspiracy, chiefly hatched by retd. Justice
I.M. Qudussi of the Orissa High Court to attempt to influence the decision of the
court with reference to medical colleges compliance requirements by Medical
Council of India (MCI).

Advocate-on-Record Prashant Bhushan represented the petitioners Campaign for

Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) in front of a Supreme Court bench
comprising of Justice J. Chelameswar. The petition stated that since CJI Misra was
hearing the matter of Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India, the matter in
hand should be listed before the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice J
Chelameswar. However, the matter was moved to a different bench comprising of
Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan.

The petition contained allegations with regard to an FIR lodged by Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI) in matters relating to criminal conspiracy and taking
gratification by corrupt means to influence the outcome of a case in Court,
indicating a nexus between hawala dealers and public functionaries including high
members of the judiciary. Advocate Kamini Jaiswal also filed a similar PIL before
Justice J. Chelameswar, citing identical grounds and prayer.

Justices J Chelameswar and S Abdul Nazeer referred the matter to a Constitutional

bench of the five senior most judges of the Supreme Court and directed the CBI to
produce case diary and all other relevant material collected during investigation
before the apex Court.

The FIR filed by CBI states the suspicious reports received by a medical college set
up by Prasad Educational Trust in Lucknow, with respect to compliance with
requirements for setting up a Medical College by Medical Council of India(MCI). The
petition filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan noted that the MCI had declined
necessary permissions for the medical college to function on two separate
occasions. Subsequently, the college was debarred from admitting students for the
academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, and petitions were filed in the Supreme
Court and Allahabad High Court. The FIR alleged that the managers of the Prasad
Education Trust, which was setting up the medical college, were in talks with a
retired high court judge and several other individuals, who were allegedly acting as
middlemen on behalf of members of the higher judiciary adjudicating the case.

The petition sought constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by a former

Chief Justice of India to investigate into the matter, given the fact that CJI Dipak
Misra was directly involved in hearing the matters pertaining to the institution of
the Medical College.

Justices Sikri and Ashok Bhushan heard the CJAR petition on 10th November.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan asked the bench to merge the petitions and asked for
the petition to be listed before Justice Chelameswar since the other petition was
listed before him. Justice Sikri, however, referred the matter to the CJI Dipak Misra
for passing appropriate orders. Supreme Court Bar Association on their application
was impleaded as parties in the matter.
A five judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra was constituted to hear the
petitions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal pleaded that since the
FIR was against the bench of the CJI he must recuse himself from deciding the
matter. However, it was rejected.

The court held that there was no question of the applicability of Article 144 or 142
since the precise question was dealt with by the Constitution Bench in the case of
CJAR and is, therefore, binding on all concerned. It was stated that the CJI is the
master of the roster and any order passed contrary to the order of the Constitution
Bench is held to be ineffective in law and not binding on the CJI.

As of 27th November 2017, the Constitutional bench has heard both the parties at
length and the order has been reserved for judgment. The final order shall be
pronounced on 1st December 2017.