Supreme Court Judges’ Press Conference 2018: The Crisis That Put India’s Judiciary in the Spotlight

Two of the four judges criticise Ranjan Gogoi’s Rajya Sabha nomination Political reaction

President Ram Nath Kovind nominated former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to the Rajya Sabha on 16 March 2020, four months after Gogoi retired on 17 November 2019. Former Justice Kurian Joseph said Gogoi had “compromised” principles of judicial independence and recalled the 2018 press conference (LiveLaw). Former Justice Madan Lokur said the nomination itself was not unexpected but that it had come so soon was surprising, and several former judges and Opposition leaders also objected (Scroll).

Gogoi said that being in Parliament would let him present the judiciary’s views to the legislature and said he would explain his decision after taking the oath, which he did on 19 March.

Keep the strands apart: these were opinions of former judges and politicians about a post-retirement appointment. They are not findings on the 2018 complaints.

Kurian Joseph and Madan Lokur retire; the original four have left the bench Court administration

Justice Kurian Joseph retired on 29 November 2018 (Onmanorama). Justice Madan Lokur retired on 30 December 2018, according to his official Supreme Court profile (sci.gov.in). Of the four, only Ranjan Gogoi, by then Chief Justice, was still serving, until 17 November 2019.

The chart below counts the days each of the four stayed on the Supreme Court bench after 12 January 2018, using the retirement dates AiTimeline could confirm.

Dipak Misra retires; Ranjan Gogoi takes charge as Chief Justice Court administration

Chief Justice Dipak Misra retired on 2 October 2018 and Justice Ranjan Gogoi took charge on 3 October as the 46th Chief Justice, serving until 17 November 2019 (Deccan Herald). The Wikipedia account of the crisis reports that Misra recommended Gogoi as his successor on 4 September, following the practice of recommending the next most senior judge (Wikipedia).

Justice Chelameswar retires Court administration

Justice Jasti Chelameswar, at whose residence the press conference was held, retired on 22 June 2018 (LiveLaw). His retirement changed the make-up of the Collegium of the five senior-most judges.

Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India: the Chief Justice is the master of the roster Judicial finding

Senior advocate and former law minister Shanti Bhushan asked the Supreme Court to clarify the Chief Justice’s authority as master of the roster, to set out procedure for preparing the roster, and to read “Chief Justice of India” in the Court’s rules as a collegium of the five senior-most judges. The petition itself accepted that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster (judgment).

The bench led by Justice Sikri disposed of the petition. It held that the established position, supported by earlier decisions including a three-judge ruling in Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India, is that the Chief Justice, not a collegium, allocates cases and constitutes benches (judgment; LiveLaw). Its closing paragraphs note that every institution should keep trying to improve its systems.

What it did not do: AiTimeline searched the judgment text and found no reference to the January press conference. It decided who holds the roster power, not whether the judges’ complaints about how it was used were right.

Congress MPs withdraw their Supreme Court challenge to the rejection of the notice Political reaction

Rajya Sabha MPs Pratap Singh Bajwa and Amee Yajnik, represented by Kapil Sibal, challenged Vice-President Naidu’s rejection in the Supreme Court. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice Sikri declined Sibal’s request for a copy of the administrative order forming the bench and asked him to argue the case on merits. Sibal did not press the petitions and they were dismissed as withdrawn (SCC Online). The Attorney General noted that only two of the 64 members who signed the notice had approached the Court.

Vice-President Venkaiah Naidu rejects the impeachment notice Political reaction

M. Venkaiah Naidu, as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, refused to admit the notice. He applied the test of whether, if every statement in the notice were believed, it would amount to “proved misbehaviour” under Article 124(4), and said it found virtually no concrete verifiable imputation. He had consulted constitutional and legal experts, including former secretaries-general of both Houses (LiveLaw; The Tribune; The Quint).

The Congress called the order illegal and hasty and said it would go to the Supreme Court. This was a procedural decision at the admission stage by a parliamentary officer. It was neither a trial nor a judicial finding on the allegations in the notice.

Seven Opposition parties submit a notice to remove the Chief Justice Political reaction

Parties led by the Congress gave the Vice-President a notice seeking the removal of Chief Justice Dipak Misra. It was first signed by 71 members; seven had since retired from the House, leaving 64 (The Tribune). Reports list five grounds, including alleged antedating of an order in a medical-college matter, a land-allotment affidavit and misuse of the master-of-the-roster power to send sensitive cases to chosen benches (ThePrint).

The notice drew on the press conference but was a political document. Its charges were allegations, not findings, and none of them was tested in a court or inquiry committee.

The Supreme Court dismisses the petitions seeking an inquiry into Judge Loya’s death Judicial finding

In a judgment written by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, the bench held there was “absolutely no merit” in the petitions. It said there was no reason to doubt the clear and consistent statements of four judicial officers, that the documentary material indicated the death was due to natural causes, and that there was no ground for reasonable suspicion warranting further inquiry. Hearings ran from 2 February to 16 March 2018 (judgment).

The Court also called the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors lacking in good faith and a misuse of the judicial process. It said the conduct prima facie amounted to criminal contempt but chose not to start proceedings.

Scope: this was a finding about the cause of Judge Loya’s death and the petitions based on two Caravan articles. It did not rule on the press conference or on how the roster was used. Critics of the order and defenders of it both exist; the judgment text is linked so readers can judge it.

Asok Pande is decided; Justice Chelameswar declines to hear Shanti Bhushan’s petition Judicial finding

A three-judge bench decided Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India on 11 April 2018, holding that the Chief Justice alone is the master of the roster. The Shanti Bhushan judgment later relied on it (judgment). Shanti Bhushan filed his own petition in early April; when it was mentioned before Justice Chelameswar’s bench, the judge declined to hear it, saying he did not want another reversal of his order within 24 hours (LiveLaw), apparently a reference to the November 2017 episode.

A subject-wise roster takes effect Court administration

A new roster took effect on 5 February 2018. Chief Justice Misra kept letter petitions and public interest litigation along with several other categories, while benches headed by the twelve senior-most judges were assigned defined subjects, for example labour and indirect tax to Justice Chelameswar (LiveLaw). It was revised again that year, including from 2 July and 7 August.

Some commentators said it would not settle the dispute, because the complaint was about sensitive cases, not categories. The Chief Justice still decided who sat on which bench.

A bench led by the Chief Justice takes up the Loya petitions Court administration

The Loya petitions, which had been before a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, were listed before a bench of the Chief Justice with Justices A. M. Khanwilkar and D. Y. Chandrachud (Deccan Herald). On 22 January it remarked that the pleas were serious but that aspersions should not be cast (Business Standard). The judgment later records that substantive hearings began on 2 February.

Talks between the Chief Justice and the four judges Court administration

Bar & Bench reported on 16 January that the Chief Justice and the four judges had begun talks (Bar and Bench). Udayavani reported on 18 January that Misra met the four for around 10 to 15 minutes before court (Udayavani). The Wikipedia chronology places an informal meeting on 15 January (Wikipedia). Sources therefore disagree on the dates; none reported a published settlement.

On 16 January the Loya pleas before Justice Mishra’s bench were directed to an “appropriate bench”.

The four judges return to court; officials say the matter is settled Political reaction

On Monday 15 January the four judges attended court. Attorney General K. K. Venugopal called the crisis a storm in a teacup and said it was settled, and Bar Council of India chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said the story was over (Legally India). The judges themselves did not announce that their concerns had been met.

Reactions pour in; the Bar forms a delegation to mediate Political reaction

Lawyers, former judges and political parties responded with both support and criticism (Newslaundry: who said what). The Bar Council of India formed a seven-member delegation on 13 January. It met judges of the Supreme Court on Sunday 14 January (Udayavani).

Four senior judges hold a press conference Stated concern

Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph spoke to journalists and released a seven-page letter to Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Justice Chelameswar said the Court’s administration was “not in order” and that efforts to persuade the Chief Justice had failed (The Leaflet). The letter has no date line. Chelameswar said they had gone to the Chief Justice with a letter “a few months back” and again that morning, but failed to convince him (Legally India, quoting the NDTV broadcast); other reports say the letter was sent about two months earlier.

The letter cites the 27 October 2017 order in R. P. Luthra v. Union of India and the Memorandum of Procedure for appointing judges, says the Chief Justice is “only the first amongst the equals,” and says important cases were assigned selectively to benches “of their preference” without a rational basis (National Herald; The Quint). It also says such orders affected the independence of the High Courts. These were the judges’ stated concerns, not findings.

The Loya question: the letter does not name Judge Loya’s case. At the conference a journalist asked, “Is this about Loya?” and Justice Gogoi answered yes, while Chelameswar was heard to say it was not just about Loya (Newslaundry transcript; The Wire). The Wikipedia chronology, citing the Times of India, adds that at the morning meeting the four had asked the Chief Justice to move the Loya case to a more senior bench and he refused.

The medical-college dispute: two benches, two orders in 24 hours Stated concern

In a petition about a medical-college admissions case, Justice Chelameswar’s bench on 9 November ordered a hearing before a constitution bench of the five most senior judges. On 10 November a bench led by the Chief Justice set that order aside and said the Chief Justice is the master of the roster (Wikipedia, citing the Guardian and India Today). On 14 November a bench of Justices R. K. Agarwal, Arun Mishra and A. M. Khanwilkar dismissed advocate Kamini Jaiswal’s petition, calling it forum shopping and contemptuous but not starting contempt (Bar and Bench). On 1 December the same bench dismissed a second petition by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms and imposed costs of Rs 25 lakh (SCC Online).

The case concerned allegations about attempts to influence judicial outcomes. The dispute described here is about which bench should hear it; it is not proof that any case was manipulated.

The Caravan publishes articles questioning Judge Loya’s death Stated concern

Articles in The Caravan of 20 and 21 November 2017 reported the family’s doubts about the circumstances of Judge B. H. Loya’s death. The Supreme Court later recorded that the petitions before it were founded on these two articles (judgment). Judge Loya was a special CBI judge who had been hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

Judge B. H. Loya dies in Nagpur Judicial finding

Brijgopal Harkishan Loya died on 1 December 2014 in Nagpur, where he had travelled for a colleague’s daughter’s wedding, while presiding over the CBI special court in Mumbai (judgment). The Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment concluded that the death was due to natural causes. That finding is discussed above; it is not repeated as the answer to every question about the Loya matter.