In the realm of law and justice, there are instances that captivate an entire nation and its legal community, leaving observers astounded. The year 2017 witnessed such an event in India, a series of legal proceedings that left many bewildered.  

On the 31st of May 2017, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, under the Government of India, delivered a seismic shock - it revoked the conditional permission granted for the establishment of several medical colleges. These institutions found themselves barred from admitting students for the academic years 2017-18 and 2018-19, a decision accompanied by the encashment of substantial bank guarantees, each valued at an astonishing 2 crores.

  In August 2017, the Honorable Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, issued a landmark judgment. It directed the Central Government to meticulously reassess the materials pertaining to the contentious permissions granted to these institutions. Moreover, the court requested a comprehensive review of recommendations from various regulatory bodies, including the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS).

  As the legal skirmish intensified, the Central Government, through a well-reasoned order dated 10th August 2017, continued to prohibit the colleges from enrolling fresh students for the prescribed two-year period. Additionally, the MCI was authorized to execute the encashment of the bank guarantees provided by the defaulting institutions.

  Amid this legal maelstrom, an advocate, Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, made an appearance before Chief Justice Dipak Misra on the 17th of August 2017. He was representing a case challenging the Central Government's order of 10th August 2017. The court granted permission to list the matter on the 21st of August 2017.

  Shortly thereafter, Prasad Educational Trust, one of the debarred institutions, filed a Writ Petition, although it was eventually withdrawn. However, the legal entanglement did not conclude there, as the trust subsequently submitted a petition before the Allahabad High Court. On the 25th of August 2017, the High Court took the extraordinary step of restraining the MCI from delisting the college and executing the encashment of the bank guarantee.  

Unwilling to yield, the MCI filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging this decision. On the 29th of August 2017, the Supreme Court restrained the MCI from executing the encashment of the bank guarantee and granted the respondent the liberty to file a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

  The tides of fortune began to shift on the 18th of September 2017 when the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 797/2017, concerning Prasad Educational Trust, was heard by a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India. Citing an order from the 1st of September 2017, the court effectively annulled the Central Government's order of 10th August 2017, thereby lifting the ban on enrolling new students and restraining the MCI from executing the encashment of the bank guarantees.

  Nevertheless, this already complex legal narrative took a stunning turn on the 19th of September 2017, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The FIR raised eyebrows due to allegations of a substantial sum of money, approximately 2 crores, being involved in a transaction promising a favorable judgment from the Apex court. It also raised questions about the involvement of senior public officials, casting a shadow of suspicion over the Chief Justice of India, Honorable Shri. Dipak Mishra.

  The legal world was abuzz on the 9th of November 2017 when Senior Advocate Mr. Dushyant Dave presented a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the court, titled Kamini Jaiswal Vs. UOI and Anr. The PIL sought the establishment of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a former Chief Justice of India to investigate allegations of corruption. The argument was rooted in the belief that an independent investigation into allegations against Supreme Court judges should be conducted, separate from any government influence, to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

  In a surprising twist of events, Justice J. Chelameswar scheduled the matter for a hearing at 12.45 p.m. on the same day, despite a written direction from the Chief Justice's office. Subsequently, a five-judge bench, under the leadership of the Chief Justice of India, invalidated Justice J. Chelameswar's order of 9th November 2017, which had referred the Medical College Scam matter to a constitutional bench comprising the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court.

  On the 11th of November 2017, the legal saga continued to unfold. The cause list indicated that the case titled "Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. UOI and Another" had been listed before a three-judge bench, despite being directed to be heard by a constitutional bench of the five most senior judges.

  The legal world had not witnessed such a series of events and intrigue in recent memory. It left many pondering the intricacies of law, justice, and the independence of the judiciary. As the nation watched, the story continued to evolve, and the future of these legal matters remained uncertain.      

Analysis of the Order Dated 09/11/2017 by the 5-Judge Bench headed by the then Honorable Chief Justice

The order issued on the 9th of November 2017 by a 5-judge bench, with the Honorable Chief Justice at the helm, declared the paramount authority of the Chief Justice in constituting benches and allocating cases. This assertion, while in keeping with the conventional practice of the court, raises pertinent legal issues when examined in the context of the unique circumstances of the case.

  The principle that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, as upheld in the order, is generally sound and rooted in legal precedents, notably the three-judge bench decision in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1. However, the present case is far from ordinary; it involves the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a former Chief Justice to probe corruption allegations against the sitting Chief Justice. In light of the constitutional bench's judgment in K. Veeraswami vs. Union Of India And Others (1991) SCC (3) 655, it is argued that the most appropriate course of action would have been to constitute a bench comprising the five most senior judges, as directed in the order of 9th November 2017 by Justice J. Chelameswar.

  The concept of Principles of Natural Justice (PNJ) comes into play, particularly "Nemo judex in causa sua," which means "no one should be a judge in their own cause." In this context, the order is subject to review under the Curative Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, with ultimate consideration by the most senior judges.

  A related PNJ is "Audi Alteram Partem," which means "hear the other side." The opportunity for a hearing must be meaningful and substantial, which is critical, especially when a matter is heard by a bench of five or seven Supreme Court judges. However, in the current case, the Advocate on Record (AOR) was provided a mere 20-minute notice before the hearing and, in court, was unable to present any arguments due to the commotion. The AOR eventually left the court, further raising concerns about the hearing's fairness. The order also fails to acknowledge the AOR's absence, a significant oversight in adherence to PNJ.

  This order is susceptible to the logical fallacy of a "Red Herring" and a "Straw Man." It diverts attention from the central issue - the corruption allegations - and instead delves into the question of who holds the prerogative as the master of the roster. The essential issue at hand, the allegations against the Chief Justice, is arguably being overshadowed by this debate.

 The order dated 10/11/2017 by Justice Dipak Misra emphasizes that any order contrary to its directive is legally ineffective and not binding on the Chief Justice of India. This declaration effectively nullifies the order of 9/11/2017 issued by the bench headed by Justice J. Chelameswar. The fallacy of a "Straw Man" is evident, as the latter order is not addressed substantively. The 9/11/2017 order was crafted to suit the unique circumstances of the case and was not intended to challenge the routine prerogatives of the Chief Justice.

In conclusion, the legal intricacies surrounding this case are multifaceted. The handling of the corruption allegations against the Chief Justice of India demands a careful and balanced approach to uphold the principles of justice and judicial integrity. It is imperative for the institution to consider the ramifications of not addressing the accusations transparently, as it may erode public confidence in the judiciary. The resolution of this case will have far-reaching consequences, impacting the legal and constitutional fabric of the nation. The role of the judiciary is critical, not only in upholding the rule of law but also in safeguarding its own reputation and integrity.

 Furthermore, the case serves as a reminder that, as members of this revered institution, it is our duty to stand up and ensure that the judiciary remains unblemished and beyond reproach. In cases involving serious allegations against its own members, the judiciary must adhere to the highest standards of accountability and transparency. The judiciary's strength lies in the trust that the common citizenry has in its ability to uphold justice, and this trust must be preserved at all costs.

  This is not the first instance where the institution allowed its reputation to be tarnished. In a similar case involving the late Kalikho Pul, the then Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, the allegations raised in his suicide note were not adequately addressed. This serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of not addressing allegations of corruption within the judiciary promptly and transparently.

  The case currently titled "Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. UOI and An" is listed before a three-judge bench to be heard on the 13th of November 2017, as constituted by the Honorable Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The bench may consider referring the matter to a larger bench, with a recommendation to the Chief Justice to constitute a bench consisting of the five most senior judges or may refer the matter to Justice J. Chelameswar to decide administratively on granting sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Justice, as per the K. Veeraswami case. The resolution of this case will significantly impact the Indian judicial system, setting a precedent for how the judiciary handles allegations of corruption within its own ranks