RS is yet to finalise Dinakaran chargesheet
Even as controversial Karnataka high court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran prepares to take charge of the Sikkim HC, the inquiry committee set up by the Rajya Sabha chairman to look into the allegations of corruption and “judicial misconduct” against him in an impeachment motion could not finalise the chargeesheet to be served on him.
“The chargeseet has not yet been finalised as the committee is still examining the bulky documents, which will take some time,” sources said after the two-hour-long meeting of the panel at the residence of Supreme Court Judge V.S. Sirpurkar, who heads the probe committee.
The sources, however, said that the panel would meet soon to have detailed discussion on the entire issue. Justice Dinakaran, facing impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha, had kept himself away from the judicial work in Karnatka HC after the motion was accepted by Rajya Sabha chairman Hamid Ansari in 2009, but there are indication that he might resume judicial duty in the Sikkim HC after taking charge of its CJ.
This has already led to some protest by the Bar Association of Sikkim, which has threatened to boycott his swearing-in by the governor. The other members of the inquiry panel are; Justice J.S. Khehar, appointed new CJ of Karnataka HC and senior advocate P.P. Rao. Before finalising the chargesheet, the committee also has to decide an application moved by the main complainant raising certain objections on the procedure being followed by the panel.
Chennai-based NGO, Forum for Judicial Accountability, which filed the complaint against Justice Dinakaran initially, had requested the panel to first decide its application. Earlier, Dr Ansari had rejected the NGO’s demand for replacing Justice Sirpurkar.
The impeachment motion for removal of Justice Dinakaran, had alleged that he had grabbed a large chunk of government land and the land of some dalit families in his home district in Tamil Nadu.
Besides, several other charges of “corruption” and “judicial misconduct” have been levelled against him, which include possessing disproportionate assets, securing five plots from housing board illegally in favour of his wife and daughters, “benami” transactions, violating land ceiling laws by possessing excessive land, destruction of evidence, obstructing public servant from doing their duty, undervaluation of property and passing “dishonest” judicial orders to favour some individuals.
Post new comment