Home Legal News Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Inquiry Against Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi

Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Seeking Inquiry Against Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi

by Preeti Dhoundiyal
RANJAN GOGOI

On 21 August 2020, a PIL seeking an in-house inquiry against former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was dismissed by the supreme court noting that the judge has now demitted office and the PIL is now infructuous.

Background of the PIL Registered Against CJI Ranjan Gagoi

Back in 2018, Arun Ramachandra Hubalikar had filed the PIL but after months of CJI Gogoi being superannuated, it came up for hearing today.

The Bench before today’s hearing informally observed that the prayer appears to be rendered infructuous. The petitioner, appearing in person nevertheless sought to make his case.

Petitioner’s Case in the Plea against CJI Ranjan Gogoi

Justice Arun Mishra
Justice Arun Mishra
Justice BR Gavai
Justice BR Gavai
Justice Krishna Murari
Justice Krishna Murari

The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, BR Gavai, and Krishna Murari were informed by the petitioner that for the constitution of an in-house committee to take suitable action against Gogoi J, the PIL was filed.

Advertisements
Projectvala assignment service updated

Arguments by the Petitioner in the CJI Ranjan Gogoi Case

Arguments were raised that during the tenure as a Supreme Court judge the now retired CJI had abused his office through acts of “commission and omission”.

Likewise, He sought to cite orders which were allegedly marred by bias, impropriety and passed by  Gogoi J when in office.

ALSO READ- Prashant Bhushan files affidavit in contempt case, “To assume CJI is SC and SC is CJI is to undermine the institution of Supreme Court”

Supreme Court’s Say in the CJI Ranjan Gogoi Case

However, in no uncertain terms the Supreme Court expressed that the prayer is rendered infructuous and no such inquiry can be ordered now with Gogoi J demitting office.

The petitioner was questioned by Justice Mishra regarding the delay in the PIL, the petitioner to which responded that despite “dozens of reminder letters” sent by him to the Registry, his petition was not listed earlier and filed two years ago.

Advertisements
Justice Arun Mishra
Justice Arun Mishra


The Court’s inability to grant the prayer was expressed by Justice Mishra,

“He has demitted office now. What can be done? Nothing can be done now… because he has demitted office, nothing remains in the petition. We cannot go into all that or consider this prayer now…”

Thus, the court refused to entertain the PIL as being infructuous and hence was dismissed.

Related Articles

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

× Chat with us on WhatsApp