SC judge trashes social media campaign for his recusal, says attempt to malign image of top court
New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice Arun Mishra Tuesday took umbrage to a social media campaign and news reports seeking his recusal from a Constitution bench which is hearing a batch of pleas challenging the validity of provisions related to compensation in the Land Acquisition Act.
A visibly annoyed Justice Mishra, heading a 5-judge bench, referred to certain social media posts and articles and said: "I will be the first person to sacrifice if the integrity of institution is at stake.
"I am not biased and don't get influenced by anything on earth. If I am satisfied that I am biased then only I will recuse myself from hearing this case".
He was also critical of the word "impartial", used repeatedly by parties seeking his recusal, and said: "This word hurts me. Don't use it as it will send wrong message to the common man".
Justice Mishra was part of the verdict in February last year which held that land acquisition by a government agency could not be quashed for delay on the part of land owners in accepting compensation within five years due to reasons such as lingering court cases.
In 2014, another verdict had held however that land acquisition can be quashed on account of the delay in accepting the compensation.
On March 6 last year, the apex court had said that a larger bench would test the correctness of the verdicts delivered by these two benches of similar strength on the same issue.
As soon as the 5-judge bench, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Sharan, M R Shah and S Ravindra Bhat, assembled for hearing the case on Tuesday, senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for some farmer associations and individuals raised objection over Justice Mishra hearing the matter.
He sought Justice Mishra's recusal on the ground of judicial propriety saying that the bench is examining the correctness of a verdict, which was also authored by him.
"It was a over hundred page judgement in which Justice Mishra has expressed his mind and said that other view taken by a bench of similar strength is per incuriam (bad in law)," Divan said, adding that a judge cannot sit in appeal of his own judgement.
He said the question of propriety raised by the parties is an altogether different formation and is an attempt to malign the institution.
Justice Mishra, however, said: "This issue is different. It is not so simple. Letters are being written. Social media posts are there. Articles are being written in newspaper. You and I know what is the issue. I can tell you but not in open court.
"Entire institution and the Chief Justice of India is being maligned on social media. If anyone can be maligned like this, then how will the court decide the issue. Then all of us are disqualified not only Justice Arun Mishra is disqualified."
He said the Constitution bench is sitting to interpret the provision of law and not to see the correctness of earlier verdicts and asked the parties to satisfy him as to why he should recuse himself from hearing the case.
"I may be criticised for my view, I may not be a hero and I may be a blemished person but if I am satisfied that my conscience is clear, my integrity is clear before God, I will not budge. If I think I will be influenced by any extraneous factor, I will be the first to recuse myself," he said.
He said he would like to settle the law on recusal as "if questions are raised like this against a judge of the Supreme Court then who will hear the case".
Justice Mishra added that the "question is can we not sit in the Constitution bench though it is us who referred the matter to larger bench. It is not the appeal against the verdict in which I was the party. I may change or correct my view, if persuaded".
Divan said he was concerned only with development of law and added that since the presiding judge of the Constitution bench is a signatory of the verdict whose correctness is being examined by it then there could be an element of impartiality.
Justice Mishra interjected Divan and said, "Don't use this word 'impartiality' repeatedly. It hurts me. Don't use it as it will send wrong message to the common man. You can other words or sentence to express yourself and if you want to insult the institution or the judges then you can go on. You have a licence to argue".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Centre said: "The prayer is not for undermining a single judge but entire constitution bench judges. There is a pattern wherein two days before important matters an article appears on social media or newspaper intended to influence the hearing in the court. Nobody takes social media seriously but this pattern emerging should be taken seriously".
Divan said he cannot speak for everyone on social media but their request for recusal was meant to strengthen the apex court which is also based on local and global laws.
The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on Wednesday.
The earlier verdicts in the two cases -- Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) and the Indore Development Authority (2018) -- dealt with the issue of interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Two arrested in K'taka for assaulting minors, uploading CSAM content
Bengaluru (PTI): Two men were arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting two minor girls, recording the acts on mobile phones and uploading the videos online as child sexual abuse material, police said on Thursday.
The accused have been identified as Kiran Kumar (29), hailing from Chitradurga district, and Aditya M K (20), hailing from Shivamogga district, they said.
A probe was initiated after information was received from the NCRP portal regarding a suspected instance of creation of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) for online dissemination, police said.
Accordingly, a case was registered at Kaggalipura Police Station under relevant sections of the IT Act on May 10, they added.
Investigation revealed that two minor girl victims were exploited and videos were created and uploaded to the internet. The child victims have subsequently recorded their statements as per procedure and further necessary legal steps have been taken, Pronab Mohanty Director General of Police, Cyber Command, said in a statement.
Based on the statements of the victims, the accused persons, who allegedly assaulted the minors, recorded the acts on mobile phones and uploaded the videos online, were arrested, he said.
Following the probe, sections 65(2) (rape) and 70 (gangrape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with relevant sections of the POCSO Act, have been added to the FIR, police said.
Officials collected relevant information and on May 12, arrested the accused persons and seized three mobile phones belonging to them, in which the videos had allegedly been recorded, he said.
The accused were later produced before the court and taken into police custody for further investigation, he added.
According to him, in CSAM cases, police usually apprehend offenders who have downloaded such content or have kept them in their possession after obtaining them from elsewhere, usually the internet.
"The present case is one of the very few instances where content creators and uploaders have been apprehended," Mohanty added.
