Supreme Court Won't Change Decision in Judge's Bribery Case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea to reconsider its verdict by which a PIL into the medical admission scam was junked with a penalty of Rs 25 lakh.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Arun Mishra, rejected the review petition filed by NGO 'Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms’ (CJAR) against the December 1 judgment.

The bench, also comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ashok Bhushan, held that there is no merit in the petition, and thus the NGO will have to shell out Rs 25 lakh in cost.

"We have carefully gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We find no merit in the review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed," stated the court order.

The review petition was decided in the judges' chambers.

The development is significant because this matter had witnessed stormy proceedings in the top court with a Constitution Bench being set up hastily to nullify an order issued by Justice J Chelameswar in a similar case.

The Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, had nixed the order issued by Justice Chelameswar, and declared the CJI as 'master of the roster'.

Subsequently, CJAR's petition was listed before a three-judge bench for adjudication on merits.

In December, the bench dismissed CJAR’s petition, which attempted to make a point on judicial corruption citing arrest of a former high court judge in the MCI admission scam by the CBI, as wholly frivolous, contemptuous and unwarranted.

CJAR has sought an independent probe into the matter, pointing out that names of various judges, including CJI Dipak Misra, was being raked up.

But the court dismissed this petition and further penalised the NGO for filing the PIL by imposing a cost of Rs 25 lakh.

Seeking a reconsideration of the judgment, CJAR filed a review petition through advocate Prashant Bhushan and claimed there were errors apparent on the face of the record, leading to grave miscarriage of justice.

The review petition contended that a bona fide plea for investigation cannot be labeled as contemptuous and scandalous and that an SIT probe would, in fact, ensure “protection of the judiciary from baseless harassment”.

About the monetary penalty, CJAR argued that that the costs were imposed in violation of principles of natural justice and ‘rule of law’ since the NGO was never granted an opportunity to defend itself against the penalty.