Summary
A petition sought an SIT investigation into alleged attempts by intermediaries and a retired High Court judge to influence medical-college litigation. It also challenged the Chief Justice’s allocation of the case and sought a sitting Bench member’s recusal. Applying the intervening Constitution Bench roster ruling, the Court rejected these objections and dismissed the petition.
Issues
- Whether the Chief Justice could constitute the Bench despite the contrary earlier two-judge listing order and the petitioner’s objection.
- Whether the alleged bribery circumstances warranted the sought SIT or recusal.
- Whether filing an identically worded successive petition constituted forum hunting.
Held
- The intervening five-judge decision controlled: the Chief Justice is master of the roster and alone constitutes Benches and allocates cases. A two- or three-judge Bench cannot prescribe a particular composition. The contrary earlier order was ineffective, and the present Bench could not reopen the Constitution Bench ruling. (¶¶ 9–11, 15–16, 27, 30)
- The successive identically worded petition was filed after counsel knew the earlier matter would be heard by a different Bench. Seeking same-day hearing in the preferred court rather than listing together amounted to improper forum hunting on these facts. (¶¶ 17–18, 26–30)
- No Supreme Court judge was named in the FIR. The Court rejected the premise implicating sitting judges, considered the timing and outcome of the medical-college proceeding, and applied the judicial-independence safeguards discussed in Veeraswami. These reasons supported refusal of the requested intervention, without adjudicating the named accused persons’ criminal guilt. (¶ 22–23)
- Prior participation in the medical-college case, with no allegation against the Judge, furnished no reasonable basis for apprehending bias. The oral request for Justice Khanwilkar’s recusal was rejected as another attempt to choose the Bench. Although conduct was strongly criticised in contempt terms, the operative order imposed no contempt sentence or monetary costs. (¶ 28–32)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; roster-allocation and recusal objections rejected. No SIT constituted and no contempt sentence or monetary costs imposed by this judgment.