The Supreme Court judgement on Justice Dinakaran’s objection to a Rajya Sabha inquiry committee clearly exposes the motive of the former Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court.
Indeed, Dinakaran, who filed an objection to the inclusion of a particular lawyer a year after he came to know of the lawyer’s presence on the committee, was roundly criticized by the Supreme Court today for his delaying tactic.
“.. the belated raising of objection againstinclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee under Section 3(2) appears to be a calculated move on the petitioner’s part,” noted today’s order passed by Justice G.S. Singhvi of the Supreme Court.
He noted that Justice Dinakaran, who was once nominated for the Supreme Court, seems to be putting his knowledge of the law to use in trying to delay the investigations into his alleged misdeeds (including land-grabbing and corruption.)
“He is an intelligent person and knows that in terms of.. Rules, 1969, the Presiding Officer of the [Rajya Sabha] Committee is required to forward the report to the Chairman within a period of three months from the date the charges framed under Section 3(3) of the Act were served upon him.
“Therefore, he wants to adopt every possible tactic to delay the submission of report which may in all probability compel the Committee to make a request to the Chairman to extend the time… This Court or, for that reason, no Court can render assistance to the petitioner in a petition filed with the sole object of delaying finalisation of the inquiry,” noted the order.
It also noted that the petitioner (Justice Dinakaran) failed to raise any objection against the inclusion of the advocate, P.P. Rao for ten months after coming ot know about his inclusion.
“A person on the petitioner’s standing can be presumed to be aware of his right to raise an objection. If the petitioner had slightest apprehension that respondent No.3 had pre-judged his guilt or he was otherwise biased, then, he would have on the first available opportunity objected to his appointment as member of the Committee.
“The petitioner could have done so immediately after publication of notification dated 15.1.2010. He could have represented to the Chairman that investigation by a Committee of which respondent No.3 was a member will not be fair and impartial because the former had already presumed him to be guilty..
“However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner never thought that respondent No.3 was prejudiced or ill-disposed against him and this is the reason why he did not raise objection till April, 2011 against the inclusion of respondent No.3 in the Committee.
“This leads to an irresistible inference that the petitioner had waived his right to object to the appointment of respondent No.3 as member of the Committee. The right available to the petitioner to object to the appointment of respondent No.3 in the Committee was personal to him and it was always open to him to waive the same,” Justice Singhvi noted.
