Row over chief justice of India's appointment

''Serious allegations'' against the senior-most Supreme Court judge Justice M M Punchhi, opposing his appointment as the next chief justice of India, have generated intense heat in the legal fraternity.

Senior advocates are divided, and the Supreme Court Bar Association has been caught in a storm triggered by some legal luminaries's memorandum to the Chief Justice of India against Justice Puncchi's elevation. Copies of the petition have been sent to the President and the prime minister.

The petition has been signed by Shanti Bhushan, Ram Jethmalani, Hardev Singh, V M Tarkunde, Kamini Jaiswal and Indira Jaising -- all legal stars -- who are members of the Committee on Judicial Accountability.

A majority of the SCBA members, however, have vociferously opposed the move. The allegations are ''not only untimely, but highly motivated and made by such members who consider it their privilege to make irresponsible allegations with a view to terrorising members of the judiciary, thereby undermining the rule of law", stated a resolution passed by the SCBA's general body meeting on Monday.

The resolution is backed by legal luminaries like former attorney general Milon Banerjee, senior counsel P P Rao, G L Sanghi and SCBA president Kapil Sibal.

The meeting, attended by 551 advocates, also unanimously decided to suspend with immediate effect Shanti Bhushan, Jethmalani, Hardev Singh, Tarkunde, Jaiswal and Jaising and launch contempt proceedings against them.

''We condemn any move to supersede the senior-most judge for the chief justiceship of India. We further condemn the vested interests bent on destroying the judiciary's independence," said the resolution.

The meeting also urged the President and the prime minister as well as the Chief Justice of India to reject these lawyers's representation, terming the signatories's conduct as highly unbecoming of any Supreme Court advocate.

''Attacks on members of the judiciary, made selectively, not only embarrass the institution but also lower its credibility. The condemnable conduct has lowered the association's prestige and brought it ridicule in the eyes of the public,'' the resolution said.

Expressing its faith in Justice Punchhi's integrity, the SCBA said the allegations amounted to defamation and contempt of court.

''(The SCBA) members have appeared in Justice Punchhi's court ever since he was elevated to the apex court eight years ago and were of the belief that his conduct in the court and the manner in which he admits justice has left no doubt that the allegations against him are frivolous and ought not to be taken note of, especially as they represent the subjective views of a minuscule minority."

According to SCBA secretary Rupinder Singh Suri, it was decided that show-cause notices would be issued to the signatories on why they should not be expelled from the SCBA.

The meeting also called for suo motu contempt proceedings against The Statesman for having published excerpts from the memorandum against Justice Punchhi.

Similar proceedings, the members said, should be launched against the signatories for violating the apex court's order in the Rajiv Garg versus Shanti Bhushan case in 1994. The verdict said that such petitions against judges should be made through the bar associations. Sibal, however, felt that the demand should be referred to the SCBA's executive committee.

RELATED REPORT: Where Angels Fear To Tread