Supreme Court was not moving in right path under former CJI Dipak Misra: Justice Kurian Joseph
On January 12, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, in a first of its kind press meet had alleged faulty “assignment of cases” and “sensitive cases being allotted to junior judges” by then CJI Dipak Misra.Updated: Dec 02, 2018 12:50 IST
After demitting office as Supreme Court judge, Justice Kurian Joseph, who was one of the four judges to go public against the functioning of then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, said that the top court was not going in the right direction under Misra, reports ANI.
On January 12, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph, in a first of its kind press meet had said “unless Supreme Court is preserved, democracy will not survive.” They had alleged faulty “assignment of cases” and “sensitive cases being allotted to junior judges” by Justice Misra.
Justice Joseph who retired on November 30 said, “We pointed that the Supreme Court was not going in right direction. Many aspects we brought in the notice of the then Chief Justice (Dipak Misra) to put things on the proper path. Since there was no result, we thought there was no other option but to bring it to the notice of the nation,” reports ANI.
“There was one other reason. My position has always been that there are two watchdogs, one of which is the media. We came out to let there be an awareness that we have done our best. Despite barking the master is in deep slumber. So we decided to bite,” he added, asserting that things have improved since then. “Institutional system and practices need to be put in place. It will take time,” Justice Joseph, who was then the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court said.
He expressed no regrets about conducting the unprecedented press.
On being asked about allegations of corruption in the judiciary, Justice Joseph said the allegations are unfounded. He said, “I will never really agree that there is corruption in higher judiciary. If it is in the lower judiciary, it is the state’s concern. In the higher judiciary, it has not come to my notice.”