October 24, 2007
The Supreme Court’s First Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.Balakrishnan, Judges Raveedran and Dalbir Bhandari today disowned the Committee of Eminent Persons, appointed by the Government of India in the Sethusamudram Canal Project matter, which committee is to suggest a new counter affidavit to be filed iby the government in the Supreme Court by mid-December. The CJI observed that the apexcourt did not constitute the said committee and therefore is not interested whether it is biased or not. The CJI further observed that when the matter comes up in January 2008, I would beat liberty to raise all objections to the Committee at that stage before the Court if the Government relies on the committee’sreport.
I had in my Interlocutory Applicationsaid that the Committee was biased and rigged, and since it’s formation was announced by the Additional Solicitor General in Court, direction ought to be given by the Bench to quash the present committee and a new unbiased committee should be set up.
Sethusamundram project: SC refuses to hear Swamy’s plea
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on wednesday refused to entertain the plea of Janta Party President Subramaniam Swamy seeking quashing of the expert committee constituted by the Centre to review the Sethusamudram project.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan made it clear that it was not going to interfere with the work of the Committee and Swamy could file his objections before it.
“We are not going to interfere in the committee as it is not a committee appointed pursuant to our order,” the Bench said when the former union minister mentioned the application before it for re-constitution of the committee.
Swamy alleged that the “Committee of Eminent Persons” constituted by the Centre was a rigged committee and biased.
However, the Bench said “the committee was not appointed pursuant to our order”.
“Let it gives its report. You can file your objections,” the Bench, also comprising Justices R V Raveendran and Dalveer Bhandari, said.
Swamy complained that the Committee, which will commence its proceeding from October 29, was not providing him the necessary documents, making it difficult for him to appear before it.
“They are going back on the promise to provide the documents,” he alleged.
However, the Bench said no such assurance was given to the court.
At this, Swamy said does it mean that the committee has no significance for the court.
“We are not saying anything. Let the committee give its report,” the Bench said.