Rajiv murder case was assigned to three junior Supreme Court judges

Some felony mavens have argued that the argument raised by means of the senior SC judges casts a shadow over the independence of different benches and this requires some supportive proof. Other opinion has held that there is benefit in the fees of 'bench solving' levelled by means of the senior judges and requires a response by means of the CJI who has held that the roster is his area as has been the case in the past. Those who disagree with the insurrection judges indicate that the recommendation that an effort to discreetly "help" the government in circumstances that would possibly embarrass it needs to be subsidized up or may well be noticed as a means to pressure benches listening to quite a lot of circumstances.
The first of the necessary circumstances tracked by means of TOI pertains to appeals filed in 1998 by means of Nalini and others challenging their conviction and death sentence in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. At that time of time, it used to be essentially the most high profile case in the country. But the then CJI assigned it to a few junior judges - Ok T Thomas, D P Wadhawa and S S M Qadri who sat in courts much farther than those headed by means of the fifth seniormost SC judge. No questions had been raised over variety.

In 1999, the CBI filed a brand new chargesheet in the Bofors case, making shocking allegations. NRI industrialist brothers Srichand and Gopichand Hinduja had been made accused. The trial courtroom refused bail. When they got here to the SC searching for bail, the then CJI assigned it to courtroom number eight, headed by means of junior judge M B Shah. They got bail by means of putting Rs 15 crore bonds. This used to be no longer considered 'bench solving' by means of the then CJI.

Advocate Lily Thomas filed a writ petition in 2005 searching for disqualification of MPs and MLAs upon their conviction and sentence for two or extra years. Elected representatives had been used to maintaining directly to their memberships in Parliament and assemblies by means of submitting an appeal. This recreation converting petition used to be assigned by means of the then CJI to courtroom number 9, which used to be headed by means of Justice A Ok Patnaik, then a junior judge.

The Best Bakery case got here to SC in 2004 through a writ petition filed by means of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh. The Gujarat riots case, which earned the then Gujarat government the tag of 'modern day Nero', used to be treated by means of then junior judge Justice Arijit Pasayat sitting in courtroom number 11.

Rubabuddin Sheikh, brother of Sohrabuddin who used to be killed in a fake come across, filed a writ petition in 2007. The case, which became out to be politically an important for Amit Shah and Gujarat police, used to be assigned to a bench sitting in courtroom number 11 headed by means of Justice Tarun Chatterjee, one of the crucial junior most SC judges at the moment. Orders from the courtroom created hassle for BJP and its management in Gujarat and didn't draw in any comment from activist attorneys about imaginable 'bench solving'.

In 2009, renowned recommend Ram Jethmalani launched a crusade towards black money by means of submitting a petition in the SC. The case, which changed into an election issue in 2014, used to be treated by means of courtroom number 9 and by means of a bench of then 'junior judges' Justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar. A year later in 2010, an NGO led by means of recommend Prashant Bhushan introduced the case with regards to alleged irregular allotment of 2G spectrum and the then CJI assigned it to courtroom number 11 of Justices G S Singhvi and A Ok Ganguly. No one can fault the way they treated the case in spite of being juniors.

The similar year, the Delhi HC gave a landmark judgment decriminalising consensual sexual relationship in personal between adults of LGBTQ group. The appeal by means of one Suresh Kumar Kaushal in the SC used to be assigned by means of to courtroom number 11 where a bench headed by means of Justice G S Singhvi heard it for the primary time.

In 2011, the CBI filed an appeal, after much dithering, wondering the Allahabad HC choice to drop conspiracy fee towards L Ok Advani and a bunch of BJP stalwarts in the Babri masji demolition case. In March 4, 2011, the case used to be heard in courtroom eight by means of a bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and T S Thakur. The bench changed to Justices H L Dattu and Chandramauli Prasad in courtroom 11, then to courtroom number 9 of Justices M Y Eqbal and Arun Mishra in 2016. It handed directly to courtroom number 6 of Justices P C Ghose and R F Nariman which gave judgment on April 19 final year reviving the conspiracy fee.

In 2012, 4 explosive PILs had been filed - irregular allotment of coal blocks that got here with regards to singe then PM Manmohan Singh, validity of Aadhaar, validity of 66A of Information Technology Act and an alleged sexual attack case towards Rahul Gandhi. The coal rip-off petition by means of recommend M L Sharma used to be assigned to a bench headed by means of Justice R M Lodha sitting in courtroom number 7.

The petition challenging the validity of Aadhaar used to be the one exception to the general rule because it used to be assigned to courtroom number 5, headed by means of Justice B S Chauhan. Still the judges with seniority at two, 3 and 4 may just harbour a complaint why it used to be no longer assigned to them by means of the CJI.

An appeal filed by means of one Kishore Samrite introduced a curious judgment handed by means of Allahabad HC, which had dismissed Samrite's petition with a price of Rs 50 lakh, of which Rs 20 lakh used to be to be given to Rahul Gandhi. The then CJI assigned this to a bench of Justices V S Sirpurkar and T S Thakur in courtroom number eight and then changed the bench to Justices B S Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, which dismissed it with a price of Rs 5 lakh on Samrite.