CJI ‘no’ to opt out of Assam Detention Centre case

Also Read

Toll in Nagaland floods, landslides rises to nine; four still missing

56 minutes ago

MEA summons Russian diplomat over cargo ship attack that killed four Indians

2 hours ago

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Harsh Mander seeking recusal of Chief Justice Gogoi from hearing the Assam Detention Centres Case.
In addition to the Chief Justice refusing to recuse from hearing, the apex court bench removed the name of petitioner Mander from the records and appointed Legal Services Authority as the petitioner in the case.
Mander’s previous counsel Prashant Bhushan has been appointed as the Amicus Curie in the case.
Mander had sought recusal of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi from hearing the writ petition in the larger interest of the institution. He also submitted that he is no longer using the legal services of advocate Prashant Bhushan in this case.
He said he is seeking compassion, humanity and the commitment of the Supreme Court in upholding international human rights regimes as well as its own tradition of safeguarding and guaranteeing human rights enshrined in the Constitution.
According to him, the comments and oral observations made by Justice Gogoi when the matter came up for hearing before the court has raised apprehensions in the mind of the applicant that there is the possibility of bias affecting the outcome of the petition.
“The statements made by the judges of the Supreme Court have a ripple effect not just within the judiciary but amongst the public at large and therefore need to be made with responsibility and more gravitas than an off the cuff remark by any other citizen of the country”.
He further said he apprehends his petition seeking humane treatment of foreigners in detention camps and the ending of their indefinite detention, in accordance with their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the statute, appears to have been turned on its head by the Chief Justice who, by his observations in a series of hearings, appears to use the same petition instead to seek detention of thousands of more persons in these detention centres, and the repatriation of deemed foreigners by the state of Assam without ensuring that the principle of Rule of Law and the international law principle of non-refoulement are adhered to.