E-Paper
HC CJ recuses from hearing plea against CJI Chandrachud’s appointment
Delhi high court chief justice Satish Chandra Sharma on Friday recused from hearing a review petition against an order dismissing a PIL challenging the appointment of DY Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India.
Delhi high court chief justice Satish Chandra Sharma on Friday recused from hearing a review petition against an order dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of DY Chandrachud as Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Justice Sharma said since he had dismissed the petition earlier, it would not be appropriate for him to listen to the matter again.
The bench, also comprising justice Subramonium Prasad, said certain allegations have been levelled against them in the petition and said it will be heard by another bench on January 16.
Appearing for the Centre, the counsel Kirtiman Singh said the review petition is “scandalous” and that he will be pressing for initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner.
Chandrachud was sworn in as the 50th CJI on November 9 last year.
Two days later, the high court bench dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh the PIL by Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari against CJI Chandrachud’s appointment.
Tiwari, who claims to be the national president of an non-governmental organisation named Gram Uday Foundation, alleged the CJI’s appointment was against the provisions of the Constitution.
While dismissing the PIL, the bench said the offices held by the constitutional functionaries in public trust are not open to denigration by self-styled warriors of public interest on the basis of superficial allegations.
The petitioner later moved a plea, seeking review of the high court’s earlier order as well as to waive off the costs.
“The petitioner fails to understand the provisions of law which debars the petitioner from approaching the high court with a request to ensure compliance of various provisions of the Constitution for appointment of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India or use of Hindi language in courts,” he said.
“Imposing a penalty for such a petition is the most unjust and unconstitutional action of the chief justice and his companion judge. Hence, the review petition is filed, ” he added.
