Three legal eagles decode the Supreme Court crisis

It is a very sad and unprecedented day for the institution that four of the senior most judges (Justice J Chelameswar, Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Ranjan Gogoi) of the apex court felt compelled to take the issue with respect to their grievances directly to the public and in the process destroying the image of the collegial unanimity on the basis of which many of the institutional decisions are taken. I am sure that they tried their best to avoid such a situation. And that they did not take their decision (of holding a press conference) lightly. But after having taken this decision it must be ensured that no further bridges are burned and no further damage is done to the institution.

The ability to act as a team has to be respected. The judiciary is considered as a family. And it is not like the judicial family comprises of only the chief justice as its head and others his subordinate. The chief justice is first among equals; the institution has evolved with the chief justice often being reflective of the thinking of the whole institution. I think the (four) judges deliberately did not go into the details of their complaints. But rather than assuming the specifics of their complains, it is better for the chief justice and others to evolve a modus for sorting out as many problems during the remaining tenure of the current chief justice that ends in October.

A very healthy development that can only lead to something good: Indira Jaising, senior advocate and former additional solicitor general, SC
It's a historic event. I welcome the move and congratulated the four judges. There has to be a consensus between the five senior most Supreme Court judges (in the administration and MoP). There is no other "right way" to take up the matter (than the way the four judges handled it). The four judges did make an effort to speak to the chief justice about their grievances. Left with no choice they decided to take the matter directly to the press.

I do not see any foul play in the manner in which a new judge is appointed after the death of Judge Loya -- who was looking into the Sohrabuddin encounter case -- and within two weeks of the appointment, (BJP president) Amit Shah is acquitted. I am only concerned about institutional integrity. The question that one wants to ask is that why did the CBI not file an appeal after the aquittal of Amit Shah. I think they should still file an appeal.

As far as Friday's event is concerned, I do not think the development had or could do any damage to the judicial institution. It is a very healthy development. People have the right to know that not all is well in the judiciary. Such events can only lead to something good and can't damage the reputation of the institution.

Yes the chief justice can and does decide the roster of judges but he can't do it without consulting the senior judges of the Supreme Court. Then when you see sensitive cases being assigned to specific judges you begin to wonder why?

A very disturbing day for higher judiciary: Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Supreme Court advocate
It's obviously a very disturbing day for the higher judiciary -- that an unprecedented situation like this arose and the concerns of four of the senior-most judges of the supreme court were not being properly entertained. It is disturbing because it shows the simmering discontent within the judiciary which is otherwise not known to the public. It is also disturbing because it sets a precedent for such ventilation happening in the future again. While they have conducted the event in a highly restrained manner in not sharing the specific and puerile details, the problem is that we are still stumbling in the dark. We do not know the specifics or the consequences of their raising the grave concerns concerning roster allocation. It might be better from here on for all the Supreme Court judges to sit together and arrive at a separate Memorandum of Practise as to how roster allocation. It might be better from here on for all the Supreme Court judges to sit together and arrive at a separate Memorandum of Practise as to how roster allocations should take place by the CJI. This would help denoting subject matter allocations and prevent ad-hoc assignment of individual cases.

As to special CBI judge BH Loya's death and Amit Shah acquittal by the judge who replaced Loya within two weeks of his appointment, it raises grave questions about the independence of the judiciary which have to be addressed in the most serious manner possible. It is the solemn obligation of the Supreme Court to ensure that an independent investigation is conducted, not because a petition is pending, but because it is the judicial parent.