Supreme Court Mutiny: Download Letter By Four Senior Judges To Chief Justice

Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph have written a stinker of a letter to the Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra raising several serious grievances. This letter was released by the four judges in a press conference.

Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra addressed the media today saying they were discharging their duty to the nation by saying what’s what.

Stating that they have failed to convince the Chief Justice of India Deepak Misra, four of the five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court – Justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph – said there was an immediate need to preserve the judiciary system in the country if democracy has to be protected.

The press conference, a first of its kind for sitting judges of the Supreme Court, was held at the residence of Justice Chelameswar.

We met CJI with a specific request which unfortunately couldn’t convince him that we were right therefore, we were left with no choice except to communicate it to the nation that please take care of the institution,” Justice Chelameswar said.

All four judges should be impeached for the rebellion & indulging in “trade unionism”: Justice R S Sodhi (Retd)

However, Justice R S Sodhi (Retd) was not impressed by the rebellion staged by the four Hon’ble Judges.

He claimed that the act of the four judges of holding a press conference to show the Chief Justice in poor light is “immature & childish behaviour”.

He also suggested that the four judges should be “impeached” for indulging in “trade unionism”.

Text of the letter addressed by the four judges to the Hon’ble Chief Justice

Dear Chief Justice,

It is with great anguish and concern that we have thought it proper to address this letter to you so as to highlight certain judicial orders passed by this Court which has adversely affected the overall functioning of the justice delivery system and the independence of the High Courts besides impacting the administrative functioning of the Office of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

From the date of establishment of three chartered High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, certain traditions and conventions in the judicial administration have been well established. The traditions were embraced by this Court which came into existence almost a century after the above mentioned chartered High Courts. These traditions have their roots in the anglo saxon jurisprudence and practice.

One of the well settled principles is that the chief justice is the master of the roster with the privilege to determine the roster, necessity in multi-numbered courts for an orderly transaction of business and appropriate arrangements with respect to matters with which member/bench of this court (as the case may be) is required to deal with which case or class of cases is to be made. The convention of recognising the privilege of the chief justice to form the roster and assign cases to different members/benches of the court is a convention designed for a disciplined and efficient transaction of business of the court but not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual, of the chief justice over his colleagues.

It is too well settled in the jurisprudence of this country that the chief justice is only the first amongst equals — nothing more or nothing less. In the matter of the determination of the roster there are well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the chief justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the composition thereof.

A necessary corollary to the above mentioned principle is that any multi numbered judicial body including this Court will not arrogate to themselves the authority to deal with and pronounce upon matters which ought to be heard by appropriate benches, both composition wise and strength wise with due regard to the roster fixed.

Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.

We are sorry to say that off late the twin rules mentioned above have not been adhered to. There have been instances where case having far reaching consequences for the Nation and the institution had been assigned by the chief justices of the court selectively to the benches “of their preference” without any rationale basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.

We are not mentioning details only to avoid embarrassing the institution but note that such departures have already damaged the image of this institution to some extent.

In the above context we deem it proper to address you presently with regard to the Order dated 27th October, 2017 in R.P. Luthra vs. Union of India to the effect that there should be no further delay in finalizing the Memorandum of Procedure in the larger public interest.

When the Memorandum of Procedure was the subject matter of a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. vs. Union of India [ (2016) 5 SCC 1] it is difficult to understand as to how any other Bench could have dealt with the matter.

The above apart, subsequent to the decision of the Constitution Bench, detailed discussions were held by the Collegium of five judges (including yourself) and the Memorandum of Procedure was finalized and sent by the then Hon’ble the Chief justice of India to the government of India in March 2017. The Government of India has not responded to the communication and in view of this silence, it must be taken that the Memorandum of Procedure as finalized by the Collegium has been accepted by the Government of India on the basis of the order of this Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record-Association (Supra).

There was, therefore, no occasion for the Bench to make any observation with regard to the finalization of the Memorandum of Procedure or that that issue cannot linger on for an indefinite period.

On 4th July, 2017, a Bench of seven Judges of this Court decided InRe, Hon’ble Shre Justice C.S. Karnan (2017) 1SCC 1]. In that decision (refer to in R.P.Luthra), two of us observed that there is a need to revisit the process of appointment of judges and to set up a mechanism for corrective measures other than impeachment. No observation was made by any of the seven learned judges with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure.

Any issue with regard to the Memorandum of Procedure should be discussed in the Chief Justices’ Conference and by the Full Court. Such a matter of grave importance, if a all required t be taken on the judicial side, should be dealt with by none other than a Constitution Bench.

The above development must be viewed with serious concern. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India is duty bound to rectify the situation and take appropriate remedial measures after a full discussion with the other members of the Collegium and at a later state, if required, with other Hon’ble Judges of this Court.

Once the issue arising from the order dated 27th October, 2017 in R.P.Luthra vs. Union of India, mentioned above, is adequately addressed by you and if it becomes so necessary, we will apprise you specifically of the other judicial orders passed by this Court which would require to be similarly dealt with.

With kind regards


Ranjan Gogoi

Madan B. Lokur

Kurian Joseph


8 comments on “Supreme Court Mutiny: Download Letter By Four Senior Judges To Chief Justice




    • Naganand Nileshwar says:

      Law goes by precedent. This is the first offence and has therefore set a precedent. Merits apart, if this was to happen in the Army, court-martial was the only recourse. Of the 26 odd judges, only 4 offended. Hence there is no majority.
      The next major default was reclusion. If these 4 judges were not in agreement with the CJI, they should have reclused themselves in every case coming before them. This did not happen. Having the cake and eating it too. Better yet, they should have first resigned and then raised the issue.
      Then comes the issue of going public. The oath of secrecy was dispensed with by these 4 judges.
      The last straw was aligning to a political view. The judges had no business to entertain Raja. More so, Raja had no business to meet the judges. Raja further went to press and said that this issue would be raised in Parliament.
      The Collegium has been rendered sub-servient to the politician.
      How can any one now believe that the judiciary is independent? Till now it was so believed. Not any further. I, for one, cannot believe so.
      The last pillar of Democracy is shaking. Even if the issue is sorted out as claimed by the AG, the faith in judiciary is already shaken at the highest level. This had percolated to the lower ranks but not evidently not discernable. But now it is in open, thread bare.
      The same judiciary should not only be above law but seen to be above law. This is the tenet of law. Have they adhered to it? I leave this question open.

  3. Imdian says:

    All wings of this country appear to be now up for sale of souls. The Govt. is not at all looking good. Yes men now populate the independent institutions in this independent country putting us back to monarchy and dictatorship. The little indepence that is left was being systematically attacked. Seemingly a case of 4 professionally competent judges against 1 influencee judge in his dictatorial best – the 4 were pushed to public domain else they had to sell their souls – conveying acts have been done by the influencee after selling his soul. Impeachment of the influencee remains the only answer.

  4. Naganand Nileshwar says:

    Democracy has reached the Supreme Court. Law given a bye. Great to see this on a National Network. How could these judges discharge their duty impartially? The third pillar of DEMOCRACY is in tremors.
    Can I rely on the justice system?
    Will any one of them answer?
    And a politician like A Raja reaches there.
    This is like MUTINY in the Armed Forces. Wake up INDIA.

  5. Nem Singh says:

    This all happened because of the call of freedom of all such as freedom of speech, freedom of privilege power, freedom of passion, freedom of expression even against the nation, freedom of business even life of the human’s dignity, privacy, freedom of corruption, freedom of decision making power. All are king no one the king’s man, all are boss no one the serviceman etc. But all are here on this earth no one above the God. All are fighting to become a superman. I thing their call is within the principle ” nothing more or nothing less”.

  6. CA R I Choksey says:

    What a shame !! It seems all want publicity these days. Least expected of persons holding high judicial posts. Now that the four have made known their views to the media, they ought to resign. The media has got its fodder for the day.

  7. Ashwani Joshi says:

    Absolutely unwarranted and in a very bitter taste. There are many other ways of showing disagreement than going to the media.The world will mock at this step.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *