<p>Chief Justice of India N V Ramana on Friday rued the beginning of a new trend in which governments were maligning judges, terming it unfortunate.</p>.<p>Hearing a matter related to quashing of FIR against former principal secretary of Chhattisgarh, a three-judge bench presided by Justice N V Ramana expressed its displeasure after a counsel questioned the High Court's order.</p>.<p>Two petitions — one by the Chhattisgarh government and another by activist Uchit Sharma against the High Court's order — came up for hearing before the court.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/political-masters-will-change-but-institution-is-permanent-cji-asks-cbi-to-be-independent-1096839.html" target="_blank">Political masters will change, but institution is permanent: CJI asks CBI to be independent</a></strong></p>.<p>The High Court had quashed the FIR registered against Aman Kumar Singh saying that the allegations were prima facie based upon probabilities. Singh was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing a petitioner, submitted the reason for quashing the FIR is that the allegation was based on probability.</p>.<p>On this, the Chief Justice remarked: “don't try to malign the courts. I'm watching in this court also."</p>.<p>Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Chhattisgarh government, contended that they are not pressing that point at all.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/cji-launches-faster-to-communicate-scs-orders-1096477.html" target="_blank">CJI launches 'FASTER' to communicate SC's orders</a></strong></p>.<p>Justice Ramana then replied, “No, we are watching every day. You are a senior counsel; you've seen this more than us”.</p>.<p>“It’s a new trend, government started maligning the judges, it's unfortunate," the CJI added.</p>.<p>Dave, at this point, clarified that they haven't maligned anyone in the matter.</p>.<p>“Please see the reasoning, it's not the trend and not vindictiveness", Dave claimed, adding that the allegation is of disproportionate assets.</p>.<p>The bench said it can't allow this kind of victimisation as allegations were based on surmises.</p>.<p>Dave said it was not a surmise, and termed the accumulation of Rs 2,500 crore's worth of wealth shocking. The bench then said the special leave petition was an exaggeration. </p>.<p>Dwivedi, for his part, contended the respondent had one property worth Rs 11 lakh when he joined service, and he has now purchased 7 properties worth Rs 2.76 crore.</p>.<p>The bench, however, posted the matter for further hearing on April 18.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest DH videos here</strong></p>
<p>Chief Justice of India N V Ramana on Friday rued the beginning of a new trend in which governments were maligning judges, terming it unfortunate.</p>.<p>Hearing a matter related to quashing of FIR against former principal secretary of Chhattisgarh, a three-judge bench presided by Justice N V Ramana expressed its displeasure after a counsel questioned the High Court's order.</p>.<p>Two petitions — one by the Chhattisgarh government and another by activist Uchit Sharma against the High Court's order — came up for hearing before the court.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/political-masters-will-change-but-institution-is-permanent-cji-asks-cbi-to-be-independent-1096839.html" target="_blank">Political masters will change, but institution is permanent: CJI asks CBI to be independent</a></strong></p>.<p>The High Court had quashed the FIR registered against Aman Kumar Singh saying that the allegations were prima facie based upon probabilities. Singh was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, representing a petitioner, submitted the reason for quashing the FIR is that the allegation was based on probability.</p>.<p>On this, the Chief Justice remarked: “don't try to malign the courts. I'm watching in this court also."</p>.<p>Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, representing the Chhattisgarh government, contended that they are not pressing that point at all.</p>.<p><strong>Also Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/cji-launches-faster-to-communicate-scs-orders-1096477.html" target="_blank">CJI launches 'FASTER' to communicate SC's orders</a></strong></p>.<p>Justice Ramana then replied, “No, we are watching every day. You are a senior counsel; you've seen this more than us”.</p>.<p>“It’s a new trend, government started maligning the judges, it's unfortunate," the CJI added.</p>.<p>Dave, at this point, clarified that they haven't maligned anyone in the matter.</p>.<p>“Please see the reasoning, it's not the trend and not vindictiveness", Dave claimed, adding that the allegation is of disproportionate assets.</p>.<p>The bench said it can't allow this kind of victimisation as allegations were based on surmises.</p>.<p>Dave said it was not a surmise, and termed the accumulation of Rs 2,500 crore's worth of wealth shocking. The bench then said the special leave petition was an exaggeration. </p>.<p>Dwivedi, for his part, contended the respondent had one property worth Rs 11 lakh when he joined service, and he has now purchased 7 properties worth Rs 2.76 crore.</p>.<p>The bench, however, posted the matter for further hearing on April 18.</p>.<p><strong>Check out latest DH videos here</strong></p>
