Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Dec 12, 2007
ePaper
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Dec 12, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Front Page |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs |
Front Page
Veeramani interfering in the administration of justice in the case: Swamy CJI denies having seen any letter from the DK chief NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned to January 16, 2008 hearing on a batch of petitions filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and others challenging the implementation of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project. A three-Judge Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, adjourned the hearing as the Centre sought further time to file its response. Additional Solicitor-General R. Mohan, appearing for the Sethusamudram Corporation, told the Bench that the government was examining the report of the expert committee and some more time was required to file the response. When counsel for some of the petitioners wanted the court to direct the Centre to give copies of the committee’s report, the CJI told them: “We have not appointed the committee. We only allowed them to set up the committee. They may or may not accept the report. You challenge if any decision is taken.” Dr. Swamy told the Bench: “I had filed an application urging the court to take suo motu contempt of court proceedings against K. Veeramani, President of the Dravidar Kazhagam for writing a letter to the CJI asking him not to entrust the Sethusamudram case to a Bench headed by Justice B.N. Agrawal [it was this Bench that said that Ramar Sethu should not be destroyed].” He alleged that the DK President, by writing a letter to the CJI, had interfered with the administration of justice. The CJI told him: “Every day we receive hundreds of letters. To my knowledge I have not seen any such letter [from Mr. Veeramani]. Even if it is so, I am not bound by that letter. We don’t entertain such requests. We don’t act on such letters. We don’t want to say anything on contempt. We don’t think that such things will affect the administration of justice.” Dr. Swamy said: “To say something confidential is different but to make it public in newspapers will amount to contempt.” When the CJI said: “I have not received any such letter,” Dr. Swamy said: “The situation is worse if the CJI had not received the letter, which is, however, made public. This will definitely amount to contempt and my application should be heard.” The Bench agreed and said the application, after it was numbered, would be heard along with the main petitions. It posted the matter for further hearing on January 16.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
 
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
