While dismissing the public interest litigation against Justice Ramana, the Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai made some significant remarks. They termed the PIL was but a ‘ruse to malign’ Justice Ramana. They also felt that “the real intent of this petition is to malign” the Justice. Interestingly, the SC did not name Justice Ramana in the entire Judgement.
The following are some excerpts from the judgement in the PIL against Justice Ramana:
“The legal issue raised by Mr. Shanti Bhushan is answered but this matter cannot be given a proper closure unless we also say that this writ petition professed to have been filed in public interest is, in our view, but a ruse to malign respondent No.3.”
————————–
“What the Chief Justice said, in a highly restrained manner,about the representation addressed to the Chief Justice of India,applies more to this writ petition. The writ petition owes its origin to a news report published in a Telugu daily newspaper called ‘Sakshi’ on December 27, 2011. A translated copy of the report is enclosed as 32 Annexure P-11 to the writ petition. The report is based on incorrect facts and is full of statements and innuendos that might easily constitute the offence of defamation leave alone contempt of court.
After the news broke out, the petitioners seem to have collected the record of the criminal case and filed this writ petition on that basis.
The writ petition is drafted with some skill and it presents the facts of the criminal case in a rather twisted way in an attempt to portray respondent No.3 in bad light. The way the writ petition is drafted shows that the petitioners are competent and experienced counsel.
Had they examined the records of the criminal case objectively and honestly, there was no reason for them not to come to the same conclusion as arrived at in this judgment or as appearing from the report of the Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court. It, therefore, appears to us that this writ petition is not a sincere and honest endeavour to correct something which the petitioners truly perceive to be wrong but the real intent of this petition is to malign respondent No.3.
It is indeed very important to uphold the “institutional integrity” of the court system as pointed out in the CVC judgment and as strongly advocated by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, but it is equally important 33 to protect the court from uncalled for attacks and the individual judges from unjust infliction of injuries.
In light of the discussions made above, we find this writ petition not only without merit but also wanting in bona fides. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- payable by each of the two petitioners. The cost amount must be deposited in a fund for the welfare of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh High Court within four weeks from today.”
Full Text of the Judgement here:
SC Judgement in Justice Ramana case
