Supreme Court: India: Chief Justices - Revision history

Jyoti: /* SC committee clears CJI of sexual harassment */

2022-08-30T19:18:06Z

‎ SC committee clears CJI of sexual harassment

Jyoti: /* Career paths of CJIs, SC judges */

2021-09-06T17:14:34Z

‎Career paths of CJIs, SC judges

Jyoti: /* Personal lives */

2021-06-14T12:02:23Z

‎Personal lives

Jyoti: /* SC committee clears CJI of sexual harassment */

2021-05-18T14:29:05Z

‎ SC committee clears CJI of sexual harassment

Jyoti: /* Investigating allegations against CJI */

2020-11-17T19:53:21Z

‎Investigating allegations against CJI

Jyoti: /* Career paths of CJIs, SC judges */

2020-10-19T23:57:22Z

‎Career paths of CJIs, SC judges

Jyoti: /* Career paths of CJIs, SC judges */

2020-10-19T23:57:00Z

‎Career paths of CJIs, SC judges

Jyoti: /* Career paths of CJIs, SC judges */

2018-10-08T11:18:10Z

‎Career paths of CJIs, SC judges

Pdewan: /* Chief Justices Of India */

2018-10-03T19:54:34Z

‎Chief Justices Of India

Jyoti: /* Career paths of CJIs, SC judges */

2018-07-07T19:14:57Z

‎Career paths of CJIs, SC judges

@@ Line 227: / Line 227: @@
 Caption: A timeline of the cheating and criminal intimidation case against the Supreme Court staffer who had accused Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment
 [[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
@@ Line 232: / Line 254: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
 =Personal lives=

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 After Justice Thakur retires, going by the list, Justice J S Kehar will be appointed as the Chief Justice of India. Although Justice Anil R Dave is senior, he will retire on November 18 2016. Post his retirement, Justice Kehar who has a tenure up to August 28 2017 will be the senior most judge. Following Justice Thakur's retirement on January 4 2017, Justice Kehar will take over as Chief Justice of India and would have a tenure of 8 months.
 Justice Kehar was elevated to the Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh, on February 8, 1999. He was appointed as Acting Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court twice i.e., with effect from August 02, 2008, and again, with effect from November 17, 2009.
 He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.
 =Investigating allegations against CJI=

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:02, 14 June 2021
Line 233:		Line 233:

	Compared to their assets, a successful senior advocate in the SC earns more than Rs 50 lakh a day. AG Venugopal, while speaking at CJI Misra’s farewell function, probably had the Rs 1 lakh per month salary of an SC judge in mind. Of course, the judges get good perks, allowances and help at the residence. But in money terms, judges are far disadvantaged compared to senior advocates.		Compared to their assets, a successful senior advocate in the SC earns more than Rs 50 lakh a day. AG Venugopal, while speaking at CJI Misra’s farewell function, probably had the Rs 1 lakh per month salary of an SC judge in mind. Of course, the judges get good perks, allowances and help at the residence. But in money terms, judges are far disadvantaged compared to senior advocates.
		+
		+	= Post-retirement facilities =
		+	== Gauhati HC provides services to Justice Gogoi==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F11%2F05&entity=Ar01614&sk=408005F2&mode=text Prabin Kalita, Nov 5, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	The Gauhati HC has accepted a proposal to provide the services of a private secretary and a peon along with a chauffeur-driven vehicle to CJI Ranjan Gogoi after he retires on November 17. The proposal had come from the high court’s protocol committee as an ‘institutional courtesy’ towards the CJI, who was an advocate there long before he was elevated to the highest office of the judiciary.
		+
		+	The CJI has said that he intends to return to Guwahati after his retirement and settle down there.
		+
		+	CJI Gogoi is a history graduate from St Stephen’s College, Delhi, Gogoi got his law degree from Delhi University. He was made a permanent judge of the Gauhati high court in 2001, after which he was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010, where he became the chief justice in 2011. He was appointed a SC judge in 2012. On October 3, 2018, he succeeded Dipak Misra as CJI.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]

	=Powers, status=		=Powers, status=

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 Contrary to reports in a section of the media that views shared by Justice Chandrachud in his May 2 letter to the Justice Bobde panel had the support of 17 of 22 judges, SC sources said an “overwhelming number of judges met the CJI on Monday before lunch and expressed solidarity with the head of the institution while questioning the propriety of the letter”.
 [[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
@@ Line 186: / Line 209: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
 =Personal lives=

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 However, the SC in Veeraswamy case had provided a mechanism to deal with criminal complaints against judges of constitutional courts as well as the CJI. It had said, “In order to protect a judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment, the President will consult the CJI who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter. The President shall act in accordance with the advice given by the CJI”.
-[[Category:India|S
+==  SC committee clears CJI of sexual harassment==
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|S
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICESSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 19 October 2020
Line 238:		Line 238:

	[[Supreme Court: India: Sitting judges]]		[[Supreme Court: India: Sitting judges]]
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:57, 19 October 2020
Line 132:		Line 132:

	He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.		He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.
		+
		+	=Investigating allegations against CJI=
		+	==There is no mechanism to do so==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F04%2F22&entity=Ar00910&sk=E636C27A&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, April 22, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	With the sexual harassment allegation against CJI Ranjan Gogoi not going to die down soon despite a strong denial from the head of the judiciary, many are wondering what could be the procedure for dealing with complaints alleging criminal misconduct against a judge of the constitutional court or even the CJI.
		+
		+	Neither the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations nor the committee set up under it would be of much help to deal with the complaint filed by a dismissed junior court assistant as the panel does not have the mandate to deal with a complaint against a judge of the SC, much less the CJI, who nominates an SC judge to head the committee which deals with complaints of sexual harassment.
		+
		+	The in-house inquiry mechanism too is of little help as it talks about complaints received by the CJI against judges and the procedure to conduct inquiry into the complaint. But in both the gender sensitisation committee and the in-house mechanism, there is no provision as to what should be the procedure for a complaint against the CJI.
		+
		+	There is also no proper mechanism as to what a judge should do when such a complaint is filed. But with successive CJIs — Justices Dipak Misra and Ranjan Gogoi — facing different accusations, it is the image of the judiciary that is getting dented.
		+
		+	For, in the Veeraswamy judgment, a constitution bench of the SC had said, “The CJI being the head of the judiciary is primarily concerned with the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Hence, it is necessary that the CJI is not either from the evidence of the prosecution and/or evidence from the defence.”
		+
		+	With CJI Gogoi leading the bench of three judges on Saturday, questions are being asked in some quarters as to how a person against whom the complaint was made by the dismissed woman junior court assistant could preside over a bench and then recuse when the time came to dictate orders.
		+
		+	Applying the procedure applicable to commoners would mean that anyone facing a sexual harassment charge must immediately cease and desist from discharging the duties he is statutorily or constitutionally tasked with. This would create a situation where it would be difficult for the highest constitutional functionaries to carry on with their duties.
		+	Keeping this in mind, the SC in Veeraswamy case had ruled that constitutional court judges will enjoy immunity from instant registration of FIRs when a complaint accuses them of committing a criminal act under IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act, even though it clarified that judges are public servants.
		+
		+	The SC, while dealing with corruption charges against a former HC chief justice, had said in 1991, “A judicial scandal has always been regarded as far more deplorable than a scandal involving either the executive or a member of the legislature. The slightest hint of irregularity or impropriety in the court is a cause for great anxiety and alarm.”
		+
		+	However, the SC in Veeraswamy case had provided a mechanism to deal with criminal complaints against judges of constitutional courts as well as the CJI. It had said, “In order to protect a judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment, the President will consult the CJI who will consider all the materials placed before him and tender his advice to the President for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter. The President shall act in accordance with the advice given by the CJI”.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|S
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|S
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA: CHIEF JUSTICES]]

	=Personal lives=		=Personal lives=

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:18, 8 October 2018
Line 133:		Line 133:
	He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.		He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.

		+	=Personal lives=
		+	==Austere Justices Misra, Gogoi==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F10%2F03&entity=Ar01404&sk=2C83BC3F&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, Gogoi has no house, no mortgage; Misra has a flat and a home loan, October 3, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	''Life’s Savings Of Duo Will Fall Short Of Advocates’ Daily Earnings''
		+
		+	When attorney general K K Venugopal on Monday said judges’ salaries should be tripled, he probably had in mind the asset declarations by Supreme Court judges, particularly Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and CJI-designate Ranjan Gogoi, who will take oath as CJI.
		+
		+	CJI Misra retires after 21 years as a permanent judge, 14 of which were spent in high courts. Justice Gogoi became a permanent judge of Gauhati high court on February 28, 2001, and took oath as an SC judge on April 23, 2012.
		+
		+	Despite their long stints as HC and SC judges, their personal wealth remained paltry, and they would be considered paupers compared to successful senior advocates. Their lifelong savings in bank balance and other assets, put together, would fall short of the daily earning of many senior advocates, who command astronomical fees.
		+
		+	Justice Gogoi does not own a single piece of gold jewellery while the only jewellery his wife owns is what she got from her parents, relatives and friends at the time of her marriage. CJI Misra has two gold rings, which he wears, and a gold chain. His wife has a little more jewellery than Justice Gogoi’s spouse.
		+
		+	Both the CJI and the CJIdesignate do not have any personal vehicle, may be because they were provided with official cars for the last nearly two decades. But unlike some judges of the SC and HCs, Justices Misra and Gogoi don’t dabble in the stock market.
		+
		+	Justice Gogoi has no outstanding loan, mortgage, overdraft, unpaid bill or any other liability. Justice Misra had taken Rs 22.5 lakh loan from a bank to purchase a flat in the advocates’ cooperative society in Mayur Vihar, Delhi, which he is repaying. The CJI has another house in Cuttack, which was constructed more than a decade before he become an HC judge. Both of them had declared these assets in 2012.
		+
		+	Bank balance, including LIC policy, for Justice Gogoi and his spouse totals a meagre Rs 30 lakh. He declared in July that a plot of land at Beltola in Guwahati purchased by him in 1999, before becoming a judge in Gauhati HC, was sold for Rs 65 lakh in June (he declared the name of the purchaser too). He also said his mother had transferred in his and his spouse’s name a plot of land in Japorigog village near Guwahati in June 2015.
		+
		+	Compared to their assets, a successful senior advocate in the SC earns more than Rs 50 lakh a day. AG Venugopal, while speaking at CJI Misra’s farewell function, probably had the Rs 1 lakh per month salary of an SC judge in mind. Of course, the judges get good perks, allowances and help at the residence. But in money terms, judges are far disadvantaged compared to senior advocates.

	=Powers, status=		=Powers, status=

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 [[Jagdish Singh Khehar]]........................................................04/01/2017-...28 Aug 2017
-Dipak Misra.................................................................. 28 Aug 2017 (to 2 Oct 2018)
+Dipak Misra.................................................................. 28 Aug 2017-  2 Oct 2018
 ==Notes==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:14, 7 July 2018
Line 130:		Line 130:

	He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.		He was elevated as Chief Justice of the High Court of Uttarakhand, at Nainital, on November 29, 2009 and thereafter he was transferred as Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka, where he assumed his office on August 8, 2010. He was appointed judge of the Supreme Court on September 13, 2011.
		+
		+
		+	=Powers, status=
		+	==SC: CJI is master of roster, 'first among equals'==
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-reiterates-that-chief-justice-is-master-of-roster/articleshow/64879393.cms July 6, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the master of the roster and has the power to allocate cases in the top court because he is the first among equals in the judiciary.
		+
		+	The SC said this while pronouncing judgement on a plea by former law minister Shanti Bhushan challenging the existing roster practice of allocation of cases.
		+
		+	The top court refused to accept Bhushan's contention that the allocation of cases should be done by the SC collegium. Bhushan had also said case allocation should not be prerogative of the CJI. It added that the the apex court and the CJI represent the judiciary and act as their spokespersons.
		+
		+	"It is the moral responsibility of the CJI to look after the court and case management," said the apex court.
		+
		+	A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had on April 27 reserved its verdict on the petition, which was opposed by Attorney General K K Venugopal who had said that any attempt to delegate the power of allocation of cases to other judges would lead to "chaos".
		+
		+	In his PIL, Shanti Bhushan has alleged that "master of roster" cannot be an "unguided and unbridled" discretionary power, exercised arbitrarily by the CJI by hand-picking the benches of select judges or by assigning cases to particular judges.
		+
		+	The petition assumes significance in light of the January 12 press conference where four senior-most judges of the top court - Justices J Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph - had said the situation in the top court was "not in order" and many "less than desirable" things have taken place.
		+
		+	During the arguments, Venugopal had stressed the need for "unity" among the judges of the top court and said that Bhushan's petition to vest the power to allocate cases to the five-member collegium might lead to "conflict" among judges on who would hear which matter, besides multiplicity of authorities.
		+
		+	"It is essential that there should be one person doing this and if it has to be one person, then it has to be the CJI," the Attorney General had told the bench.
		+
		+	Senior counsel Dushyant Dave and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who had appeared for Shanti Bhushan, had questioned the manner in which some "sensitive cases" were allocated to particular benches in the court in contravention of the rules.
		+
		+	Dave had referred to constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court Rules and said that there was "ambiguity" in the rules as to whether the CJI possessed the power to frame the roster.
		+
		+	The petitioner had also made it clear that the plea and its prayer was to strengthen the court and was not directed against any individual.

	=The sources of this article=		=The sources of this article=