Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka said in his first interview after retiring in May that the case of stray dogs was a wrong sign to transfer to another bench. He said that after the criticism of the public on a large scale, the case of stray dogs is Justice J.B. Pardiwala should not have been removed from the back.
He warned that transferring cases after public criticism leads to wrong indication. Justice Oka also underlined the fact that no Chief Justice (CJI) can write a letter to any bench asking to amend the order.
Justice Oka’s remarks came under the backdrop of the dispute arising on the order of Justice Pardiwala on August 11, in which he directed to catch stray dogs in Delhi and some districts in a big way and send them to the shelter. When this decision was widely criticized, the Chief Justice (CJI) Justice Bhushan R.K. Gawai issued an administrative order, removing the matter from the back of Justice Pardiwala and handed over to a large bench.
The big bench amended the order
The big bench had amended the order given by Justice Pardiwala on August 11 as ‘very rigid’. In this new order, the apex court said that the caught stray dogs should be released back into the areas from where they were caught after sterilization and vaccination.
The letter was written in Allahabad High Court case
In another case, CJI Gawai wrote a letter to Justice Pardiwala, urging him to revise the instruction of August 4, in which the Allahabad High Court judge stopped the judge from hearing any criminal case in his remaining tenure. However, Justice Oka clarified, “The backs can withdraw or modify their orders by re -listing the cases and hearing the sides afresh, but it is clear that the Chief Justice cannot write a letter to any bench to ask for the order to revise the order.”
The original back should have been expanded
Justice Oka said that if CJI needed to hand over the case of stray dogs to a large bench, the structure of that back should have been expanded by the original two-judges. Justice Oka said, “If it had to be handed over to a large back, the same bench could have been continued and another judge could be added to it.” He also said that the removal of the original judge was not principled.