Dave's grievance was regarding the listing of the controversial 'cash-for-jobs' scam from Tamil Nadu involving a current Tamil Nadu minister before a particular judge..—–.THE Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday suggested senior advocate Dushyant Dave was being irresponsible when he alleged inappropriate listing of a matter before a particular judge.."You can be irresponsible while making comments against the Registry. You have the liberty to criticise anybody under the sun. But we (judges) have to be responsible, we have to follow discipline. I will look into the papers," CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud said in response to Dave's remark that the registry must follow rules..Dave sought to submit that as the son of a judge, he had great faith in the judiciary and that his criticism was always objective. However, the CJI retorted, saying: "Mr. Dave saying that his criticism is objective itself can be subjective.".Dave's grievance was that a particular matter ought to have been listed before a bench headed by Justice Krishna Murari, but was assigned to a different judge..The case in question pertains to the 'cash-for-job scam' in Tamil Nadu which advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned this morning, on behalf of the Anti Corruption Movement-the petitioner, before a bench comprising CJI Dr. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the case was previously dealt with by a bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian, which is why it was listed again before him..Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that the decision to list cases lies with the CJI as master of the roster..Background of the case.The matter pertains to a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the Madras High Court directing de novo (that is, fresh) investigation in all criminal cases related to the scam, thereby wiping out an earlier thorough investigation altogether, and to gather fresh evidence..The alleged scam took place in the recruitment process for the State Transport Undertakings (STUs) in Tamil Nadu in the financial year 2014–15, and involves V. Senthil Balaji, an incumbent minister in the Tamil Nadu government, and the transport minister during the period when the scam took place..In the earlier round of litigation, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer and Ramasubramanian on September 8, 2022 set aside a Madras High Court order that had quashed one of the chargesheets against the accused minister and others in respect of selection for posts of drivers and conductors in STUs..However, the Madras High Court on October 31, 2022, in an identical 'cash-for-jobs scam' case involving the accused minister in respect of the appointment of Junior Engineers in the same recruitment process, and another identical 'cash-for-jobs scam' case in respect of appointment of drivers and conductors, ordered a fresh investigation, and directed the collection of "fresh evidence and material" and filing a final report if offences are made out. This order, alleges the petitioner in the instant case, wipes out the earlier investigation despite corruption offences being made out on the face of the record of the chargesheet..The petitioner cites the September 22, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court to contend that the high court has effectively quashed the two chargesheets, regarding which the Supreme Court had wondered as to how the high court could have stayed the prosecution of persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act), especially in matters of this nature, and directed that "[i]f two other cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under the orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated. The Court dealing with those two cases should also keep in mind the disastrous effect of putting on hold the prosecution under the P.C. Act."
Dave's grievance was regarding the listing of the controversial 'cash-for-jobs' scam from Tamil Nadu involving a current Tamil Nadu minister before a particular judge..—–.THE Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Wednesday suggested senior advocate Dushyant Dave was being irresponsible when he alleged inappropriate listing of a matter before a particular judge.."You can be irresponsible while making comments against the Registry. You have the liberty to criticise anybody under the sun. But we (judges) have to be responsible, we have to follow discipline. I will look into the papers," CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud said in response to Dave's remark that the registry must follow rules..Dave sought to submit that as the son of a judge, he had great faith in the judiciary and that his criticism was always objective. However, the CJI retorted, saying: "Mr. Dave saying that his criticism is objective itself can be subjective.".Dave's grievance was that a particular matter ought to have been listed before a bench headed by Justice Krishna Murari, but was assigned to a different judge..The case in question pertains to the 'cash-for-job scam' in Tamil Nadu which advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned this morning, on behalf of the Anti Corruption Movement-the petitioner, before a bench comprising CJI Dr. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the case was previously dealt with by a bench of Justice V. Ramasubramanian, which is why it was listed again before him..Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that the decision to list cases lies with the CJI as master of the roster..Background of the case.The matter pertains to a Special Leave Petition challenging the order of the Madras High Court directing de novo (that is, fresh) investigation in all criminal cases related to the scam, thereby wiping out an earlier thorough investigation altogether, and to gather fresh evidence..The alleged scam took place in the recruitment process for the State Transport Undertakings (STUs) in Tamil Nadu in the financial year 2014–15, and involves V. Senthil Balaji, an incumbent minister in the Tamil Nadu government, and the transport minister during the period when the scam took place..In the earlier round of litigation, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer and Ramasubramanian on September 8, 2022 set aside a Madras High Court order that had quashed one of the chargesheets against the accused minister and others in respect of selection for posts of drivers and conductors in STUs..However, the Madras High Court on October 31, 2022, in an identical 'cash-for-jobs scam' case involving the accused minister in respect of the appointment of Junior Engineers in the same recruitment process, and another identical 'cash-for-jobs scam' case in respect of appointment of drivers and conductors, ordered a fresh investigation, and directed the collection of "fresh evidence and material" and filing a final report if offences are made out. This order, alleges the petitioner in the instant case, wipes out the earlier investigation despite corruption offences being made out on the face of the record of the chargesheet..The petitioner cites the September 22, 2022 judgment of the Supreme Court to contend that the high court has effectively quashed the two chargesheets, regarding which the Supreme Court had wondered as to how the high court could have stayed the prosecution of persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act), especially in matters of this nature, and directed that "[i]f two other cases where offences under the P.C. Act are included, are under the orders of stay passed by the High Court, the State should take appropriate steps to have the stay vacated. The Court dealing with those two cases should also keep in mind the disastrous effect of putting on hold the prosecution under the P.C. Act."
