NV (CJI) Ramana, the Chief Justice of India, criticised the recent tendency of administrations attempting to defame the judiciary on Friday. Attempts to cast aspersions on judges were formerly limited to private groups, according to the CJI, but the government has recently joined the bandwagon.
“Judges are being maligned by the administration in a new trend. This is regrettable, and we’re seeing it in court as well. Previously, only private parties used this method. This is something we see on a daily basis “he stated “It’s fine if you engage in any fights. But don’t try to smear the judiciary. I’m also keeping an eye on these courts because it’s a new trend “remarked the CJI.
Senior Advocate Dave then stated that no one has been wronged in the incident. “That is a tendency that no one can tolerate for even a minute. Please consider the logic; it is not the trend or vindictiveness that is at fault “Mr Dave stated.
The charge of excessive assets, according to Mr Dave, is true. When an investigation is requested, the respondent will be asked to explain his assets; if he is able to do so, the investigation will be ended. “We can’t allow this kind of persecution to continue based on our suspicions and your complaints,” the Bench added.
“It wasn’t a case of guesswork. We estimate that someone has amassed 2500 crores “Mr Dave stated.
The bench was considering a special leave petition filed by Uchit Sharma, an anti-corruption activist, challenging the Chattisgarh High Court’s order quashing an FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act as a result of a state inquiry conducted after the present petitioner filed a complaint.
The CJI presided over a hearing on a petition challenging a Chhattisgarh High Court ruling that rejected a first information report (FIR) filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court ultimately adjourned the case. The matter will be heard again by the Bench on April 18th.
Uchit Sharma has claimed in his petition filed through Advocates MP Vinod and Pranjal Kishore that his complaint against Singh and his family members, the private respondents, led to a preliminary investigation by the State, which revealed that the private respondents had assets disproportionate to their income.
Following that, an FIR was filed under Sections 13 (1) (b) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. With the assailed order, the same has been quashed.
The High Court ruled that the FIR is based on probabilities, and that “no one may be tried on the basis of likelihood.”
The impugned order was issued in a writ case filed by the private respondents in the High Court, contesting the State’s authorization to conduct an investigation under the PC Act against them. The High Court had granted them protection from coercion through an interim order.
The State of Chhattisgarh had also filed a plea seeking to have the interim order directing no coercive action vacated, according to the submission. The State said that the accused took advantage of the order and did not help with the inquiry.