Already under cloud over his alleged land holdings in contravention of land ceiling laws, Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court Justice P D Dinakaran suffered a fresh setback as an association of Bangalore lawyers on Thursday asked him to stay away from the court proceedings.
BANGALORE: Opposition to Karnataka HC Chief Justice P D Dinakaran grew shrill on Thursday with lawyers asking him not to attend court proceedings till he is cleared of allegations. They will meet again to decide their further course of action if he doesn’t comply with their request.
The man at the centre of the storm is P D Dinakaran, the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. Dinakaran is among five judges recommended for the Supreme Court by the Chief Justice of India. But some of the country's most senior lawyers, including Fali Nariman and Shanti Bhushan, say Dinakaran must explain allegations of disproportionate wealth. "How did the money come? All this requires investigation," says Shanti Bhushan.
Karnataka High Court Chief Justice PD Dinakaran's assets are under scrutiny and the Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan has asked him to respond to allegations that he has amassed assets disproportionate to his income.
Come Gandhi Jayanti and the country’s poor living in villages will get a cost-effective forum at the grassroots level for settling disputes and legal cases.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that all power — judicial power exercised by Supreme Court judges being no exception — is accountable to the Constitution.
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said: “The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice; that office is a ‘public authority’ under the Act and is covered by its provisions. Information pertaining to declarations given to the CJI and the contents of such declaration are information’ and subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.”
{edocs}Times of India CJI Judges free to make their assets public.pdf,650,600,link{/edocs}
Noted jurists K K Venugopal, Shanti Bhushan and P P Rao said the verdict on a "highly sensitive" issue was "contitutionally correct" where for the first time a decision has been given against the superior court.
Balakrishnan warned that several people wanted to delay the conclusion of criminal cases. “(But) Judges are supposed to prevent the abuse of law by those who want to delay the delivery of judgment,” he added, alluding to the judiciary’s concern at the high number of pending cases.