Law Kumar Mishra
Patna, March 22
While controversy over reported recovery of “huge pile” of cash from the bungalow of a judge of Delhi High Court is yet to settle down, people in Bihar recall an order of August 28, 2019 passed by the most senior judge of Patna High Court, Justice Rakesh Kumar directing Director of CBI to probe corruption in Patna High Court.
On Thursday, an 11-judge bench of the High Court suspended the order given by Justice Rakesh Kumar. While giving a verdict on an anticipatory bail case, Rakesh Kumar had alleged corruption and nepotism in the judiciary. On Justice Kumar’s order, the bench said, “It is contempt to reduce people’s faith in the judiciary and lower the level of respect.”
It is worth noting that on Wednesday, while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of a retired officer accused of corruption, Justice Rakesh Kumar had said that he would not remain a “mute spectator” and wanted to send his order to the Supreme Court, Prime Minister’s Office and Law Ministry through registered post.
The 60-year-old Justice was appointed as an additional judge of the Patna High Court on December 25, 2009 and took oath as a permanent judge on October 24, 2011. According to the website of the High Court, he practiced in the Patna High Court. Taking note of Justice Kumar’s order on Thursday, the 11 judges said in their order, “The Court Master also stated that the Hon’ble Judge had summoned the file for impugned order a few days ago and had studied the same. Therefore, it is evident that the preparation had started a few days before the passing of the order.”
The judges further said, “…he has made scathing remarks against his colleague judges, who incidentally passed out of the Law College together in the year 1986. This controversy has no relevance to the subject matter and then going a step further, he has made derogatory remarks against some judges in the company of the Chief Justice, which have no basis.”
The bench said in its order, “The entire order is a glaring example of violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned judge has considered himself the sole custodian of all his perceptions as against the views of others. On consideration, it seems that the personal impression of the learned judge is the only truth and the rest of the world is unaware of the wrong ideology prevailing in the society. This bench said in its order that the judge has raised his voice but in our humble opinion it is completely inappropriate and somewhat gossip.
