SC Prasad J orders Rs 5 lakh costs for 'fanciful' allegations against himself made by ex-MLA

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.

Comments

Alias 11 Feb 2014, 08:19
+1 -0
Without reference to whether the allegations were genuine or unfounded, the Judge ought to have recused.
SC violates law! 11 Feb 2014, 13:39
+0 -0
"Nemo iudex in causa sua"

The supreme protector of the law in our country forgets the basic principle of natural law...India enters into a new era of jurisprudence.
Nonominous 12 Feb 2014, 15:58
+0 -0
Recusal has not happened voluntarily too often.

The onus seems to be squarely on parties ! This is wrong.

There are other cases where conflicts of interest are spelt out by a petitioner but the Judge overrules anyway !

This happened in the Mumbai Vigbyor school case where the Bombay HC judge refused to recuse

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/student-expulsion-high-court-disposes-of-review-petition/674805/

and finally the SC set aside the HC ruling:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/SC-sets-aside-Vibgyor-student-s-expulsion/Article1-766629.aspx

These do not bode well!