NEW DELHI: Which Supreme Court judge ought to be assigned appeals versus some Madras HC orders-- presumably nullifying the apex courts September 8, 2022 judgment directing more probe into cash-for-job scam in Tamil Nadu supposedly including DMK minister Senthil Balaji-- took an ugly turn in CJI D Y Chandrachuds courtroom.The SC judgment, which had actually set aside the HCs choice to quash FIRs on the basis of a compromise deed between the allurement givers and the bribe-takers (the politician, his loved ones and workplace staff), was provided by a 3-judge bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer, A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian.

The rip-off occurred when Balaji was transport minister in the ADMK federal government.

At present, he is the power minister in the DMK government.Appeals occurring from different HC orders, some of which apparently nullified the SC order by directing de novo examination that would total up to removing the past proof gathered by police, in cases related to the rip-off were assigned to a bench of Justices Krishna Murari and V Ramasubramanian after the retirement of Justice Nazeer.

While some matters got listed before a bench headed by Justice Murari, another was noted prior to a bench headed by Justice Ramasubramanian, who passed an order asking for the CJI to note all matters associating with the fraud prior to one bench.On Wednesday, senior supporter Kapil Sibal, who also stood for some of the accused, pointed out early listing of the appeals.

Senior supporter Dushyant Dave said the matters were noted before Justice Murari and declared that the registry played a trick by listing one matter before Justice Ramasubramanian.

Your computer registry must follow the guideline, he informed the CJI.The CJI said, You can make any subjective criticism versus the pc registry standing there as a lawyer.

But, we as judges need to follow the rule.

I will check out the matter and take a call.

Heeding the CJIs remark, Dave stated, I am a judges kid.

I have the greatest regard for the judiciary.

I am constantly objective and useful in my criticism, and never subjective.

The CJI said, Your assessment that your comments are unbiased, is itself subjective.