The latest news is that the name of Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran, who is facing allegations of land-grabbing, has been "delinked" from four others who have been cleared for elevation as judges of the Supreme Court. "We have only asked that the names of four other judges should be processed for their appointment as judges of the Supreme Court," Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan has said.  He added that Justice Dinakaran's name has not been dropped. "We have not taken any decision as yet".

The move to put on hold Dinakaran's elevation comes amid allegations that the judge has amassed land in Tamil Nadu's Tiruvallur district. The Supreme Court Collegium had earlier considered a report of the District Collector of Tiruvallur which is believed to have pointed out that at Kaverirajapuram in Tiruttani taluka alone, the extent of land allegedly possessed by the judge was approximately 500 acres. Dinakaran has denied the allegations of land grabbing against him.

 The five-judge Collegium headed by CJI had earlier cleared along with that of Dinakaran the names of Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court A K Patnaik, Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court T S Thakur, Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court S S Nijjar and Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court K S Radhakrishnan for elevation to the apex court.  The Collegium had asked the district collector for his report on the allegations against Justice Dinakaran.

Meanwhile, a revenue official of Tamil Nadu's Tiruvallur District has confirmed removal of fencing around government land alleged to have been encroached upon by Justice P D Dinakaran. Tiruttani Tahsildar Vijayaraghavulu, accompanied by Revenue Divisional Officer, V G Jayakumar, inspected the land in Kaverirajapuram after a police complaint was lodged by local villagers and reported to the district collector that 1,500 metres of fencing had been removed.   

V M Raman and 65 other villagers had filed the complaint with the Kanakama Chatiram police station on Wednesday alleging that fencing was being removed by some persons in an attempt to destroy evidence of "land encroachment". Officials said the District Collector had been apprised of the latest development by way of a report but declined to divulge any further detail.

I am not here to sit on judgment as to whether the Honourable Judge is innocent or not. When charges have been leveled by responsible individuals, and when the Collegium itself has found it necessary to keep his elevation on hold, I feel a fast-track enquiry by the Honourable Supreme Court would help clear the air. Any delay in reaching a conclusion to this issue would only add to the ‘judicial’ embarrassment.  Even now, a time-bound enquiry would be the most appropriate step that the Supreme Court can take.  If the charges are found baseless, his elevation should not be delayed.

The Supreme Court would do well to lay down clear-cut regulations regarding investigation of any matter where the conduct of a judicial office holder may warrant inquiry proceedings. At this juncture, let us recall the  unprecedented step, the Chief Justice of India, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan took when he wrote to the Prime Minister  recommending that the proceedings contemplated by Article 217(1) read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution be initiated for removal of Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court.