Senior Counsel, Shanti Bhushan, representing Kamini Jaiswal, today submitted before the three-judge bench constituted to hear her petition seeking independent probe into the attempt to bribe Supreme Court Judges in a pending case, that Supreme Court Judges are not bound by the Supreme Court rules and Article 142 permitted them to do complete justice and they can direct anything except something contrary to the Constitution.Relying on A.R.Antulay and Bhopal disaster cases, Shanti Bhushan argued that under Article 144, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India, mentioned in the provision, also included every bench of the Supreme Court, and their orders are binding on all civil authorities including the Chief Justice of India. It was his contention that the hurriedly-formed five judge Constitution bench on November 10, violated Article 144 of the Constitution, by annulling the order of Justices J.Chelameswar and S.Abdul Nazeer, to refer Kamini Jaiswal’s petition to be heard by the first five Judges of the Supreme Court, according to seniority, on Monday.Justice Arun Mishra, who was part of the three-judge bench also comprising Justices R.K.Agrawal and A.M.Khanwilkar, told Shanti Bhushan that they were on the issue of propriety, and asked why Kamini Jaiswal’s petition was mentioned before Court No.2 on November 9, when it was known that a similar petition earlier filed by Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) had already been listed before Justices A.K.Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, for Friday, November 10. We are on maintainability of this petition, Justice Mishra said, adding it amounts to forum-shopping.Shanti Bhushan also explained that Justice Khanwilkar, who had heard along with the CJI and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, the case filed by Prasad Education Trust, allegedly sought to be influenced by bribery, must recuse from hearing the petition. His plea was, however, rejected by the bench.Prashant Bhushan’s contentionsPrashant Bhushan, while answering Justice Mishra’s questions, explained that Justice Chelameswar, in his oral order, on November 8, had directed that the CJAR’s petition be listed before Court No.2. However, Prashant Bhushan came to know from the Registrar that the case has been listed before Court No.6, before justices Sikri and Ashok Bhushan on November 10, as per the directions of the CJI.At this point, it was decided to mention Kamini Jaiswal’s petition before Court No.2 on November 9, as it was felt that the CJI could not hear the matter on judicial side or decide which bench should hear it. Justice Misra asked Prashant Bhushan whether he, rather than the CJI, should be exercising the discretion as to which bench should hear it .Prashant Bhushan replied that Court No.2 was exercising this authority, not him.Prashant Bhushan posed a counter question to the bench as to what forced the Constitution bench to interfere with Justice Chelameswar’s order of reference to first five senior-most Judges, on November 10.When Justice Misra quizzed Prashant Bhushan whether the first five Judges would also include the CJI, he said in his view, the CJI would recuse, and the sixth senior-most Judge would fill in the vacancy.Justice Misra then said that the constitution bench had to be formed at a short notice, because there was no time left between Friday and Monday, when the bench of first five Judges, directed to hear the petition by Court No.2 was to be formed. But in the whole country, Supreme Court’s image suffered a dent because of a wrong impression, Justice Misra hinted.Prashant Bhushan asked the bench what would have happened if the first five Judges had met. “Why was the tearing hurry to overturn the order passed by Court No.2”, he asked the bench.In response, Justice Misra asked what was the tearing hurry to file the second petition on November...
