Sunday, September 19, 2021
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

SC refuses to reduce Rs 5 lakh cost imposed on Mukesh Jain, Swami Om for challenging appointment of CJI Dipak Misra

The Supreme Court had earlier also dismissed the petition and termed it as a "popularity stunt".

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Supreme Court today refused to reduce the cost of Rs five lakh imposed on late Swami Om and his friend Mukesh Jain in 2017, for moving the Supreme Court against the appointment of Justice Dipak Mishra, just one day before his appointment for the post of Chief Justice of India.

The Division Bench of Justice D.Y. Chadrachud and Justice M.R. Shah further directed the Registry not to entertain any PIL filed on behalf of deceased Swami Om by his friend Mukesh Jain, so long as the cost is not paid. Till then, no further PIL shall be entertained by the Registry of Supreme Court. If there is any PIL filed, this order shall be placed before the Registry, noted the Court.

In 2017, late Swami Om and Mukesh Jain, national chairman of Dharma Rakshak Shri Dara Sena, had filed a petition in the apex court, challenging the recommendation made by the then Chief Justice of India JS Kehar to appoint Justice Dipak Misra.

The apex court had dismissed the petition in August, 2017, slapping the petitioners with costs of Rs 10 lakh. Later in 2019, the costs were reduced to Rs five lakh on request of Mukesh Jain, as Swami Om passed away in February this year.

It was observed that the application had no grievance or case with respect to Justice Dipak Misra or the functioning of Judiciary. The bench earlier as well dismissed their petition and termed it as a “popularity stunt”. 

Counsel for Mukesh Jain, Advocate Dr AP Singh, said that applicant Mukesh is in custody and to recover the amount he himself has to go to Balasaur Jail, where Mukesh is held. Further, there is no property to recover the cost imposed; he has nothing left, no source of earning.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati argued that this application is similar to the last application, which was also dismissed. The submissions are repeated.

Also Read: Coming Soon: The Digital Rupee

The Bench observed that even in the current application, the applicant has made continuous efforts to harass the officer of the court and stated that the application is liable to be dismissed.

“We are not concerned whether you go or anybody else. We cannot help this person, he is a contemptor,” noted Justice Shah. The application is thoroughly misread; the cost shall be paid in full with no reduction and recovered by due process of law, ordered the Court.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

News Update

Supreme Court refuses relief to NLSIU student who wasn’t promoted due to uncleared exams

A two-judge bench of Supreme Court said “How long you want that courts should run the institutions/universities and why should we interfere?” While relying to the contentions of the petitioners counsel to promote her to final year by way of an opportunity.

NGT directs stoppage of Baitarani river project work of sand filling, embankment, retention wall

According to the order 8 applicants are seeking a direction to the respondents restraining them from the sand filling work of the river basin of Baitarani on the South Bank at the place where river Baitarani bifurcates as Old Baitarani and New Baitarani in the Bhadrak District of Odisha.

Allahabad High Court recalls order listing case of errant advocate before another bench

The Allahabad High Court has recently recalled its order in which it had directed the listing of a matter before another bench citing the "mischievous behaviour of the advocate".

CBI seeks dismissal of petition for separating Director of Prosecution from agency, says post enjoys full autonomy in affidavit

The Central Bureau of Investigation has informed the Delhi High Court that the Directorate of Prosecution has got full autonomy and there is no interference in the functioning of a law officer and it has no decision-making power in the appointment of the Director of Prosecution.

Supreme Court allows appeal against summons issued to invoke power under Section 319 CrPC

The Supreme Court has set aside the summons passed by the Sessions Judge, Khiri saying the Sessions Judge will apply his mind in the light of principles laid down by the Constitution Bench.
Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.