Chief Justice Chandrachud got angry while hearing a petition due to a lawyer’s casual language during the hearing. This is what he said to the lawyer.
The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority and the top court of the country, known for its historic and fair judgments. Judges appointed to the Apex Court are highly experienced individuals who are well-versed in the complexities of the law. The top court is a place where decorum must be maintained, but sometimes judges need to remind people of this. A similar incident occurred on Monday when, as the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) bench began hearing petitions one by one, a lawyer representing one of the petitioners addressed the bench in an informal manner. The CJI immediately expressed displeasure at the lawyer’s use of the word ‘YA’ to address the honourable bench.
In a jampacked courtroom, Chandrachud told the lawyer, “Don’t say YA, YA, YA… say Yes. This is not a coffee shop; it’s a court. I have a bit of an allergy to people saying ‘Yes’ casually.”
After CJI’s remark, the petitioner started speaking in the Marathi language, CJI Chandrachud responded in the same language, telling the matter to the petitioner. The lawyer then changed his manner of speaking.
The petitioner filed a plea seeking a thorough probe against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi, asking the Supreme Court itself to conduct the investigation. During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud instructed the lawyer to remove the former CJI’s name from the petition. The petitioner was calling for an investigation against Gogoi, who is now a Rajya Sabha MP.
Is This a Petition Under Article 32? CJI Chandrachud Raises Asked?
The debate intensified when CJI Chandrachud raised a question – whether the case was appropriate for filing a petition under Article 32. Notably, Article 32 allows direct appeal to the Supreme Court for violations of fundamental rights. CJI asked, “Is this a petition under Article 32? How can you file a public interest litigation (PIL) by making a judge of the respondent? There should be some decorum in this.”
Formal Language Used by Petitioner
The petitioner responded, saying, “YA, YA, former CJI Ranjan Gogoi had asked me to file a curative petition.” CJI Chandrachud reprimanded the petitioner, providing legal clarification. He said that Justice Gogoi was a former judge of the top court, and a person cannot just file a petition against an ex-judge, demanding an investigation after the bench of the Supreme Court has already dismissed the petition.
What Was the Case About?
The applicant provided a rundown of the situation, pointing out that his plea was dismissed by Justice Gogoi, blaming it on his supposedly illegal remark. According to him, he wasn’t at fault and had pleaded to Chief Justice Thakur to redirect his plea for reconsideration to a board specializing in labour regulation issues. Unfortunately, this plea fell on deaf ears, resulting in the dismissal of his petition.
After a brief discussion, the CJI directed the petitioner to remove the name of the Gogoi from the petition, further stating that the registry would review the petition.
Source link
