login
  • SUBSCRIBER
  • User Name
  • Password
  • Remember Me
ad
18 Apr 2019, 16:24 HRS IST
|
  • PTI
CLOSE
Delhi court dismisses bail plea of alleged middleman Christian Michel, arrested in AgustaWestland chopper scam case.
add
add
    • Bookworm
  • Two hours given to Justice A N Ray to decide on CJI post?
  •  Share
  • Print Print
  •  E-mail
  • Comments Comment
  • [ - ] Text [ + ]
  • heard cabinet minister of steel and mines, (Mohan) Kumaramangalam congratulate Ray on his impending appointment as CJI," claims the book.

    Described as "nervous", "bitter" and "sarcastic" during the interview, Ray came down heavily on those who spoke against the supersession, and said many of those who had criticised it "didn't have the standing of a school-leaving certificate".

    He even pointed out to Gadbois that though the supersession of Shelat, Hegde and Grover was announced on 25 April, 1973, the three judges did not resign from the court immediately and labelled their criticism of the supersession as "immoral".

    Justice Shelat and Hegde went on leave until April 30, while Justice Grover went on leave until May 31. All three of them resigned after that.

    "He (Ray) implied that the three judges did not resign immediately in order to ensure that they would have sufficient years in service as to receive an enhanced pension upon retirement," reads the book.

    However in the same essay titled "The Beleagured Justice Ray", the author dismisses the allegation put forward by Ray.

    According to Chandrachud, there was absolutely no reason for the three judges to continue in the Supreme Court to become eligible for higher pension.

    "Shelat had seven years in office, so holding on at the Supreme Court would not have helped him. Hegde and Grover did not have seven years in office, but continuing at the court until 31 May did not give them seven years in office either," the book says.

    Notably, under the prevalent rules at the time, judges had to have seven years in office in order to get higher pension.

    The book also mentions a part of the interview where Ray defends his controversial decisions in the SC, including the Habeas Corpus case.

    "It was obvious to anyone with any sense that one cannot have the writ of habeas corpus during Emergency," he is quoted as saying in the interview.

    The Habeas Corpus judgment, which said that citizens have no right to life and liberty during a national Emergency,

  • Post your comments