New Delhi: The listing of the cases connected with the cash-for-jobs scam in Tamil Nadu became a matter of controversy in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, while Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud defended the apex court registry after it was pointed out that the matter was listed before another bench, in violation of rules.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench headed by the CJI. He contended that in September last year, a bench of Justices Abdul Nazeer and V. Ramasubramanian had restored the criminal charges against DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, setting aside the Madras High Court judgment.
He added that the court further directed that in the remaining similar cases, the police should move for vacating the stay order granted by the high court, but instead of doing that, the police agreed before the high court for a de-novo investigation and it was allowed, and petitions have been filed in the apex court challenging it.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, at this juncture, complained regarding the listing of the case and objected to the registry listing one case before another bench, when the connected matters are being heard by a different bench. He said the registry has strict rules that any matter which arises from the same judgment must come to the same court, but these matters are being heard by some other court.
At this, the Chief Justice said: “Let me look at it in the evening. I don’t have the papers with me.”
As Dave pressed that the registry must follow the rules, the Chief Justice replied: “You have the liberty to criticise everybody under the sun. We as judges of this court have to follow some discipline. And I am following it by looking into the matter and will assign a bench.”
Dave clarified that he has utmost respect for the judiciary and “I myself am a judge’s son. My criticism is objective, not subjective”.
The Chief Justice said: “Mr Dave, your assessment that your criticism is objective may itself be subjective”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that it is the prerogative of the master of the roster to assign a bench and added, “whatever your lordships decide, we have to accept”.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the matter should have gone before the bench of Justice Ramasubramanian, since it arises from his judgment, but it went before justice Krishan Murari’s bench.
The Chief Justice assured that he will look into the matter.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Abdul Rahman | 
