- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court rejects PIL seeking probe against ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi terming it as ‘infructuous’
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed as infructuous a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking in-house probe against former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi into alleged “commission and omission” by him during his tenure as Supreme Court judge. The former CJI retired last year after.A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the PIL stating that (Retd.) Justice Gogoi...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed as infructuous a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking in-house probe against former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi into alleged “commission and omission” by him during his tenure as Supreme Court judge. The former CJI retired last year after.
A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra refused to entertain the PIL stating that (Retd.) Justice Gogoi has demitted office now and nothing remained in the petition.
“Why did not you (petitioner) press it for hearing in the last two years?” asked the bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B R Gavai and Krishna Murari.
The petition, filed by Arun Ramchandra Hublikar, sought an in-house inquiry against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi alleging bias and improper conduct in passing an ex-parte order passed in July 2016. The petitioner argued that he had filed a plea in the year 2018 but it was not listed by the registry despite dozens of reminder letters sent by the petitioner.
The bench replied “Sorry we can’t entertain” and dismissed the plea.