New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave time to lawyer, Utsav Bains, to file another affidavit by tomorrow, in connection with his claim that a ‘larger conspiracy’ had been hatched to frame Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi in a sexual harassment case.
“We ask the lawyer, Utsav Bains, to file his affidavit to substantiate his claim tomorrow. We will hear the case again tomorrow at 10.30 am,” the Justice Arun Mishra-led bench ruled.
The apex court also made it clear that exercise of judicial powers by this bench will not affect any pending inquiry.It asked Mr Bains to file his affidavit to substantiate his claim that a ‘larger conspiracy’ has been hatched to frame the CJI.
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had ruled that it will hear at 1500 hrs the response of Mr Bains in support of his allegations.
It had issued summons to the Delhi Police Commissioner, Central Bureau of Investigation Director and Intelligence Bureau chief to be present at 1230 hrs in the judges’ chamber in connection with the claims of the lawyer.
The apex court said that they issued summons to the top brass in order to discuss the grave allegations. “We are issuing summons to the Delhi Police Commissioner, CBI Director and IB chief to assemble at 1230 today in judges’ chamber to discuss the entire issue,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued the notice to the lawyer to appear before it in person after he claimed that he was asked to ‘frame” the CJI.
Mr Bains, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta and Attorney-General KK Venugopal appeared before the court in the case.
Solicitor-General Mehta told the apex court that the CBI director may not be able to come as he may be out of Delhi but the joint director will come to court. Mr Mehta said that the Supreme Court should order Special Investigation Team probe to unravel the larger conspiracy to malign the CJI.
Mr Bains submitted that he had credible evidence to prove his claim. Justice Arun Mishra observed that the CJI wants to clean up the system. “There are serious issues about independence of judiciary here.’