Which judge to hear case? Supreme Court arguments get heated

NEW DELHI: Which Supreme Court Judge should be assigned appeals against Madras HC's orders, allegedly nullifying the apex court's September 8, 2022 judgment directing further probe into cash-for-job scam in Tamil Nadu allegedly involving DMK minister Senthil Balaji, took an ugly turn in the CJI D Y Chandrachud's courtroom.
The September SC judgment, which had set aside a madras HC's decision to quash FIRs on the basis of a compromise deed between the bribe givers (job seekers) and the bribe-takers (the politician, his relatives and office staff), was delivered by a 3-J bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian. Interestingly, the scam took place when Balaji was transport minister in the AIADMK government. At present he is the Electricity minister in DMK government.
Appeals arising from various HC orders, some of which allegedly nullified the SC order by directing de novo investigation that would amount to erasing the past evidence collected by police, in cases related to cash-for-job scam were assigned to a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian after retirement of Justice Nazeer. While some matters got listed before a bench headed by Justice Murari, another was listed before a bench headed by Justice Ramasubramanian, who passed an order requesting CJI to list all matters relating to the cash for job scam before one bench.

On Wednesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared for some of the accused, mentioned early listing of the appeals. Advocates Prashant Bhushan, Gopal Shankaranarayanan and Balaji Srinivasan sought tagging of all appeals and listing before Justice Ramasubramanian, who had authored the judgment. Senior advocate Dave said the matters were listed before Justice Murari and alleged that the registry played a trick by listing one matter before Justice Ramasubramanian. "Your registry must follow the rule," he told CJI D Y Chandrachud.
The CJI said, "You can make any subjective criticism against the registry standing there as a lawyer. But, we as judges have to follow the rule. I will look into the matter and take a call." Sibal it was most unfortunate to make such comments and that it can be listed before any of the judges. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said that the CJi can look into the appeals and past orders and take a call.
Taking to heart the CJI's comment on his apparent unnecessary allegations, Dave said, "I am a Judge's son. I have the highest regard for the judiciary. I am always objective and constructive in my criticism, and never subjective." The CJI said, "Your assessment that your comments are objective, is itself subjective."