The circumstances around the listing of Gautam Budh Nagar district magistrate Medha Roopam’s petition in the Supreme Court has taken an interesting turn with a lawyers’ body issuing a statement demanding clarity from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on how the matter got assigned to a judge who did not have the roster to hear cases of preventive detention.
A statement issued by the Lawyers Association for Constitution (LAFC) took note of recent news reports pointing out that the order passed by bench of justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N Kotiswar Singh on September 23 granting relief to Roopam was heard despite justice Sharma not having the roster to hear matters on “Habeas Corpus and Preventive Detention”. The Judges’ Roster issued by the Supreme Court assigned this category of cases to a bench headed by justice BV Nagarathna.
The body further questioned how justice Sharma was part of a bench which decided the validity of a law on appointment of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC) when news reports pointed out that his son is a panel lawyer of the Election Commission of India (ECI) before the Madhya Pradesh high court since July 10, 2024. Incidentally, Roopam is the daughter of the present CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Deep Dive
What controversy surrounds the Supreme Court case involving Medha Roopam and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma?
Why is the Lawyers Association for Constitution calling for a review of the Supreme Court's handling of Roopam's case?
How does the current situation with Medha Roopam relate to the Election Commission of India and Gyanesh Kumar?
The press statement issued by LFAC said, “We would welcome clarity on how the Medha Roopam matter came to be listed, and we suggest that the court consider a transparent protocol on disclosure and recusal where close relatives of a judge are engaged as counsel by a party or an interested institution.”
{{/usCountry}}The press statement issued by LFAC said, “We would welcome clarity on how the Medha Roopam matter came to be listed, and we suggest that the court consider a transparent protocol on disclosure and recusal where close relatives of a judge are engaged as counsel by a party or an interested institution.”
{{/usCountry}}It further urged that the order passed in Roopam’s matter be recalled and the matter be listed before the judge assigned the roster for hearing this category of cases. Even the other matter related to validity of the CEC and ECs appointment law is pending with the CJI after a split verdict on whether the case should be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench between justice Dipankar Datta and justice Sharma has led both judges to recommend CJI to constitute a five-judge bench. Justice Sharma favoured hearing by a Constitution bench.
Commenting on the reports raising doubts over the proceedings in the two matters heard by the judge in question, the release said, “The Supreme Court has long held that the test in such situations is not whether a judge was in fact influenced. The test is whether a fair-minded and informed observer might reasonably apprehend a possibility of bias. These principles exist to protect judges as much as litigants.”