CK Prasad

Supreme Court Justice Dipak Misra recused himself yesterday from hearing the writ petition by three petitioners, including by one Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA) scholar who is an orphan, against the Bar Council of India (BCI) surprise resurrection of an age limit on studying law.

Retired Supreme Court judges justices Gyan Sudha Mishra, CK Prasad and Balbir Singh Chauhan, were nominated by the apex court to head the proposed Lokpal ombudsman. Also in the running is retired Jharkhand high court chief justice and current Appellate Tribunal for Electricity chairman M Karpaga Vinayagam

PTI reported that Supreme Court justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant rejected a PIL filed by Prashant Bhushan with his father, senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing:

seeking registration of an FIR against former apex court judge and Press Council of India Chairman Justice C K Prasad for allegedly passing some inappropriate orders in a civil appeal during his tenure as a judge, saying if such pleas are taken up it will “open dangerous doors”.

The bench found that the Lalita Kumari guidelines - requiring police to compulsorily register an FIR in certain cases - should not apply on the present facts to judges. The Bhushans alleged that:

Justice Prasad, during his tenure as Supreme Court judge, passed an order directing listing of a civil appeal before him which was previously pending before another bench.

Ex-Supreme Court judge Justice Markandey Katju will be replaced as Press Council of India (PCI) chairman by ex Supreme Court judge Justice CK Prasad, reported the PTI.

Katju’s three-year term ended on 11 October, reported The Hindu yesterday.

Katju has been recently busy on his blog and in public, promoting a possibly upcoming tell-all book about the Indian judiciary.

Presumably his book will also tackle one or two other issues, judging by Katju’s prodigious and eclectic output that ranges from his campaign for the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to his love of both Sanskrit and Urdu, and oftentimes also the plain nonsensical...

The Bombay Lawyers Association wrote to Chief Justice of India RM Lodha about an incident alleged by senior counsel Dushyant Dave in March about Supreme Court Justice CK Prasad hearing and deciding on a property matter listed before another bench himself: "We expected some response to our letter but unfortunately our expectations were belied. It is possible that at the end of his tenure, Chief Justice Sathasivam was hard-pressed for time and could not give the necessary attention to our request." [DNA]

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave wrote to the Chief Justice of India questioning the propriety of a Supreme Court two-judge bench headed by justice CK Prasad which took away a matter listed before a three-judge bench, and decided the matter itself, reported the Times of India yesterday.

Prasad and justice Pinaki Ghose’s bench had in January passed suo motu orders tagging a Cidco golf course tender case to, allegedly, an unrelated criminal appeal it was hearing.

He said the it was “disturbing” how the hearing was “inexplicably snatched from a three-judge bench authorized to hear it”.

Dave, in his letter, said the issue raised a number of questions:

“Why was the bench headed by Justice Prasad so keen to hear the land matter in such unnatural haste in violation of judicial propriety and decorum? How did it learn of it? Could it have, suo motu, with any lawyer or party requesting its tagging, tag it? In any case, the matters were unrelated, as senior counsel C U Singh who appeared in the criminal case had informed Justice Prasad who agreed, but said the common factor was Cidco.”

The letter added, “What was the SC registry doing? Couldn't it have checked the matters were unconnected? After accepting and de-tagging it, ought not the matter to have been sent to the regular bench?”

Supreme Court justices CK Prasad and Kurien Joseph dismissed, with costs of Rs 5 lakh, the review petition of ex-MLA Kishore Samrite in which Samrite had alleged impropriety against Prasad, reported the Times of India.

Samrite had asserted that Prasad should have recused from the case in which Samrite lost before filing the review, since Prasad’s son – a Supreme Court advocate – had represented Samrite in an earlier case in 2005.

The bench stated in its order:

“Had it been brought to the notice of the court that the son of a Judge constituting the Bench represented the cause of the petitioner in an earlier proceeding, though nothing to do with the present case, perhaps Justice Prasad would not have heard the matter. Petitioner (Samrite) has not done so. He had taken the chance and when the order has gone adverse to him, he is digging out fanciful reasons to seek review of the Order.”

Samrite had earlier paid a fine of Rs 5 lakh for making false allegations against Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi.