Panel Accuses Justice Dinakaran of Delaying Inquiry

Source : Indlaw

The Supreme Court panel, constituted to probe allegations against Sikkim High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, has accused him of deliberately delaying the inquiry into the land grabbing case and judicial misconduct.

Justice Dinakaran is facing impeachment proceedings on the charges of corruption and land grabbing. He is due to retire in May next year.

The panel, headed by Justice Aftab Alam, yesterday rejected his application demanding that senior counsel P P Rao should be removed from the panel as he was a member of delegation, who met then Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan against his elevation to the Supreme Court. 

Two members of the panel, while rejecting his application, said Justice Dinakaran was wasting the time of the panel with the aim of deliberately delaying the inquiry against him as the panel has to submit the report by June 23 this year. 

The panel, which includes Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J S Khehar, also rejected another application filed by Justice Dinakaran for supply of documents. It ruled that the charges have already been supplied to him and granted him a day's time to file his response to the charges. The panel will proceed with the inquiry tomorrow. 

The panel also told Mr Dinakaran to uphold the sanctity of the high office he is holding and co-operate in the inquiry.

Justice Dinakaran, whose elevation to the apex court was put on hold after the allegation came to light, was shifted from Karnataka High Court to Sikkim High Court.

Aarushi Murder Case : Relief for Talwars

Source : Indlaw

In a reprieve for the parents of Aarushi Talwar, the Supreme Court today stayed till July 12 the proceedings in the trial court in Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case. 

The Talwars are the main accused in the case.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar granted four weeks time to petitioner Dr Rajesh Talwar and his wife Dr Nupur Talwar to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI. The probe agency has stated that both the parents are the only accused in the case. 

There is sufficient prima facie evidence against the two showing their involvement in the murder of their 14-year-old daughter and their domestic help Hemraj. 

A ninth standard student of DPS Noida, Aarushi was found murdered on May 15, 2008 at her Noida residence and the body of Hemraj was recovered two days later from the roof of the flat. 

Earlier, the CBI had filed a closure report that there was no sufficient evidence to charge sheet the dentist couple in the case though Dr Rajesh Talwar is the prime suspect. 

Dr Talwar approached Ghaziabad special CBI judge court against the closure demanding further investigation. 

The trial court rejected the closure report and summoned both the parents to face the trial in the double murder case.

Rajesh Talwar 'misled' the Judiciary, CBI tells Apex Court

Source : Times of India

In another twist to the Aarushi -Hemraj double murder case, the CBI has accused dentist Rajesh Talwar of forging documents, concealing facts and misleading the Supreme Court to get relief from prosecution in the trial court. 

In an affidavit filed before the apex court, CBI's superintendent Neelabh Kishore alleged that Rajesh, in his appeal against the trial court, had deliberately taken a false plea that he was released on bail in July 2008 which was totally contrary to facts. 

A bench of justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar which took on record the affidavit after it was mentioned by the CBI counsel said it would take up the issue on Monday when the matter would come up for hearing. 

The CBI clarified that Rajesh was released after the agency did not seek extension of his judicial custody as at that time the investigators did not find sufficient material against him. 

Seeking dismissal of the plea by Rajesh and his dentist wife Nupur challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the murders, the CBI alleged the bail application annexed along with the appeal was forged as no such document existed. 

Contrary to the dentist's claim that he had moved a bail application under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the CBI said that the trial court had ordered Rajesh's release after the agency filed an application under Section 169 of CrPc. 

The agency had then told the special court that it did not have sufficient evidence against him at that stage. 

The CBI further pointed out that Rajesh's bail claim was not mentioned in Nupur's separate appeal, challenging the same criminal proceedings against the Talwars. 

The CBI while referring to the "discrepancy" said Nupur had stated clearly that her husband was set free after CBI did not seek his further remand. 

According to the agency the trial court on March 3 issued bailable warrants that were executed against the couple on March 10, but the Talwars did not disclose this fact before the SC.

P.P. Rao Biased, Let Him Recuse Himself: Justice Dinakaran

Justice Dinakaran

Source : The Hindu

Justice P.D. Dinakaran on Wednesday raised a preliminary objection before the three-member panel, which is probing charges of corruption, land-grab and abuse of judicial office against him, demanding that one of its members, senior advocate P.P. Rao, recuse himself. Justice Dinakaran alleged that he was biased.

The panel, which included Justice Aftab Alam of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, had issued the charge sheet to Justice Dinakaran in March, seeking his response by Wednesday.

Justice Dinakaran said he had already written to Rajya Sabha Chairman Hamid Ansari on April 8 saying Mr. Rao should not remain on the committee. But Mr. Ansari had not responded to his objection. Justice Dinakaran said Mr. Rao was part of a delegation of lawyers which met the then Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, in 2009 to oppose his elevation to the Supreme Court. Further, he said, the committee had acted beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Judges (Inquiry) Act by conducting an investigation before the framing of charges.

Justice Dinakaran said the panel could not go beyond what was contained in the motion admitted in the Rajya Sabha, and that it had no jurisdiction to examine witnesses at the pre-enquiry stage.

Also, the panel was acting in an unconstitutional manner, levelling allegations against his family members, who had no nexus to the discharge of his judicial and administrative duties.

Justice Dinakaran alleged that the panel had contravened Articles 124 and 121, raking up personal issues against him and his family, even though the constitutional provisions expressly barred any such reference of a High Court or Supreme Court judge's personal life.

The committee will hear his objections on April 25.

The charges against Justice Dinakaran were levelled when he was Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. He was subsequently transferred to the Sikkim High Court.