Four senior-most SC judges attend court, BCI says 'story over'

Four senior-most SC judges attend court, BCI says 'story over'

Four senior-most SC judges attend court, BCI says 'story over'

Four senior most judges, who expressed their public dissent with the Chief Justice of India on allocation of cases, on Monday resumed their normal work in the Supreme Court, by taking up matters listed before them.

An informal meeting of CJI Dipak Misra with all Supreme Court judges is understood to have taken place before the start of the proceedings in courts, delaying the assembling of the benches by about 10 minutes in the morning.

Attorney General K K Venugopal and Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, however, said the stalemate is over.

"Everything has been settled is what I believe. Everything is under control," Venugopal said.

BCI chairman Mishra said, "We met around 15 judges on Sunday and all of them said that BCI has done a very good job and this mediation was required."

"They have resolved the issue and you can see that the courts are functioning smoothly and they are discharging their duties. There is nothing left," Mishra told reporters.

He said the BCI has been successful in its effort. No outside interference was required in the matter.

Mishra also said the system was working properly and transparency was in place.

However, there is no formal indication so far from the four senior most judges Justice J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, who came out in public on Friday against the CJI, that all of their concerns have been addressed.

Earlier, an advocate, R P Luthra urged a bench presided over by Chief Justice Misra to take action against the four judges, saying no body should be allowed to destroy the institution. He said he was speaking on behalf of the millions of the people. The court, however, did not make any observation.

The four senior most judges had on January 12 cited the R P Luthra's case pertaining to Memorandum of Procedure questioning the CJI as to why the matter was allowed to be dealt by a two-judge bench when the Constitution bench had already passed the judgement on it in the NJAC Act case in December, 2016.