Sc Denies Judges Met Bobde
The Supreme Court on Sunday denied a media report that two of its judges — Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and D.Y. Chandrachud — met Justice S.A. Bobde, who is leading an in-house board of trustees asking into claims of lewd behavior against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.
An announcement issued by the court's Secretary-General said the report was "completely wrong" that the two judges met Justice Bobde on the night of May 3 (Friday). The announcement completely said the Justice Bobde board was inspecting the claims with no contribution from some other judge of the Supreme Court.
The Indian Express paper had distributed that the two judges had met Justice Bobde and talked about their worries. The report said Justice Chandrachud had additionally kept in touch with the board, which involves Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee as individuals. It said Justice Chandrachud had asked the board not to continue ex parte without the cooperation of the complainant lady and to either furnish her with a legal counselor or select an amicus curiae.
The court articulation does not explicitly deny the letter allegedly composed by Justice Chandrachud on May 2. It just cautiously denies that Justices Chandrachud and Nariman had together met Justice Bobde.
On the third day of the advisory group hearing on April 30, the complainant had would not further take part in the "casual" procedures. She had issued a press explanation referring to that one reason for her withdrawal was that the board purportedly denied her solicitation to have a legal advisor or a help individual go with her amid the hearings. "I was constrained to leave the board of trustees procedures today (April 30) in light of the fact that the panel appeared not to value the way this was not a conventional protest but rather a grievance of inappropriate behavior against a sitting CJI," she had expressed in an official statement.
A very put source in the Supreme Court had clarified that "She (the complainant) declined to partake following which the board of trustees passed on to her that the results of her choice would be that the advisory group would need to proceed with the hearings ex parte. She concurred."
The CJI had additionally taken an interest in the panel procedures.