Supreme Court: PIL for inquiry against Karnan J. of Madras HC dismissed as withdrawn [Read Order]
Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a public interest litigation petition seeking constitution of an inquiry committee to inquire into certain allegations against Justice C.S. Karnan, a sitting judge of the Madras High Court.
The Petitioner was represented by senior counsel R Venkataramni. When the matter was called for hearing, the bench consisting of Chief Justice of India TS Thakur, and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi, CJI Thakur suggested the petitioner to pursue administrative remedies as may be available. Senior counsel then sought the leave of the Court to withdraw the petition.
Bench then passed the following order:
After arguing the matter at some length, Mr. R.Venkataramni, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition reserving liberty for the petitioner to take such recourse as may be otherwise open to him in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for.
|Case No.||Writ Petition (C) No. 827 of 2015|
|Case Title||T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocate v. Union of India & Ors.|
|Date||11 December 2015|
The PIL petition was filed by advocate T. Lajapathi Roy inter alia seeking a direction from the Court to:
Constitute a inquiry committee as per the “IN – HOUSE PROCEDURE” advised by this Hon’ble Court to inquire into the allegations of corrupt practice by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.S. Karnan, as a judge of Madras High Court and take appropriate legal action, as detailed in this petition and take further action as per the report of the said Committee, etc.
Along with Union of India as a Respondent, Supreme Court of India, through its Secretary General and the High Court of Madras through its Registrar General were also made a party in the petition as Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 respectively.
“One may not approve of all that he does but let us leave the system to work”, Justice Thakur remarks in petition against Justice CS Karnan
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) December 11, 2015
Read the complete order here.
Latest posts by Mohit Singh (see all)
- “Video conferencing cannot be directed in transfer petition” holds SC by 2:1, overrules Krishna Veni Nagam - October 9, 2017
- SC asks Centre, social media websites on AoR’s petition for keeping Indians’ data in India - September 7, 2017
- PIL before SC seeks J Lodha Panel’s recommendations to be declared unconstitutional + reference to 7 judge bench - January 6, 2017