Looking at the unruly scenes created by some ‘senior advocates’ in the SC recently, it is high time this brigade is dealt with sternly, either through the Bar or the Court
Vinod Bansal
Every eye was stuck up, be it a media channel, politician, social worker or a common man. Everybody was busy speculating what would happen in the apex court as the case of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi was to be heard on a day-to-day basis. Many petitions/appeals were made, dozens of learned advocates were ready for the arguments, and many new applications were filed for becoming a party in the case. Judges were there to find a solution to the 77-year old high profile litigation after the country’s Independence. Almost all concerned were hopeful that something new will come-up after the day-long hearing of December 5, the date decided by the Supreme Court 116 days earlier, i.e. on August 11, 2017.
It was 2.00 pm when the judges started proceedings in the court room fully occupied by the advocates, attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants, appellants, respondents, etc. Senior advocates K Parasaran, CS Vaidyanathan, Harish Salve and Vikramjit Banerjee of Shri Ram Lala Virajman started their arguments, but, the other side started repeatedly interrupting. Hearing of the matter was strenuously opposed by former Union Law minister and senior congressman Kapil Sibal and advocates Dushyant Dave and Rajeev Dhavan. They opposed the very starting of the hearing on some grounds.
Threat to walk out of the Proceedings
Sibal stated that this hearing was being made at the instance of the BJP, as it was in BJP manifesto by referring to a letter of Subramanian Swamy addressed to the PM even though his matter is detagged. He specifically mentioned that matter should be heard only in July 2019, after completion of tenure of this Government. Kapil Sibal and Dave also stated that judgment in this case will affect the secular fabric of the country and will have repercussions outside the court and therefore you should not hear it. Instead of three, not even five, but seven judges bench should be constituted as this matter is of high importance. Dhavan even told the CJI that they cannot conclude hearing of this case during their tenure. Sibal even threatened to walk out of the proceedings if the hearing commenced. The documents are running into 90,000 pages and all the exhibits have not been filed.
The counsels for Ram Lala Virajman opposed the repeated interruptions saying that it is merely a first appeal arising out of a title suit and there is no question as to interpretation of Constitution as required under Article 145. The bench accepted the contention and said that at this stage there were no questions which would require reference to larger bench, but if the occasion arises we will consider it.
Misleading the Court
When CS Vaidyanathan proceeded to open his case by stating the statement of case and placed his submission before the court, the other side again started objecting to the proceedings saying that the documents are running into 90,000 pages and all the exhibits have not been filed. The counsels for Ram Lala Virajman apprised the court that they had filed all their documents and it is only the other side who has not filed their exhibits, which were very few in number. State of UP has also filed all the translated statements as directed by the court on 11/8/2017.
It was unfortunate that on the very first day of the hearing of the first appeal, the politics, threats, indecency and illogical arguments were seen in the highest judiciary of the country.
First of all how could the manifesto of a political party affect the proceedings/judgement? If anything happens outside the court, it is the duty of the government to tackle it or approach the court in the matter (if requires). But justice can neither be delayed nor could it be denied on this ground. Secondly, how could some so-called senior counsels compel the court that the case be heard only by five/seven judge bench instead of the existing bench of three judges headed by the CJI? Being the highest judiciary of the country, most of the SC Judges have left with very short service tenures. How could the counsels stop hearing the case by a judge on this illogical ground? Over and above, it was most shocking that the so-called senior
counsels were not only shouting and disturbing the court but also threatening to boycott the court proceedings.
In another case in the apex court, due to repeated disruptions/disrespect by the Shouting Brigade the Supreme Court on December 7 warned the so-called senior advocates and lawyers to forthwith rein in their tendency to raise their voice during arguments when they find the court disagreeing with them.
Court Takes Strong Exception
Taking strong exception to the repeated tactics employed by the ‘shouting brigade’ a five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan said, “Lawyers are called the ministers of justice. They are also referred to as officers of the court. But unfortunately, a small group of lawyers raise their voice. They must understand absolutely clearly that raising their voice is not going to be tolerated. Raising the voice means either the lawyer is incompetent to present the case or he is inadequately prepared with the case.”
Referring to the arguments advanced by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Dushaynt Dave and Rajeev Dhavan in Ayodhya case on December 5 and the manner in which Dhavan argued on December 6 for Delhi Government in its turf war with the Centre, the CJI said, “We are compelled to connect it (expression of anguish) to yesterday”s incident (when the bench expressed dissatisfaction with Dhavan’s tone and tenor of arguments in the Delhi case). Behaviour of the senior counsel was atrocious yesterday. Day before yesterday (in Ayodhya case), it was even more atrocious. “The senior counsel (Dhavan) who argued on Wednesday (in Delhi case) contradicted the other counsel for Delhi government Indira Jaising. Same client had many counsels. Different and contradictory arguments were advanced by the counsel for the same party. How does the court discern what is the stand of the party? This is not the tradition of the bar. If the bar does not regulate, we will be compelled to regulate.”
Time for Bar to Act
Judges command highest respect in the country, but unfortunately, the above facts clearly show that some advocates believed that they could/have the influence over the judiciary and could do anything they want. Now it is high time to deal with this shouting brigade firmly either through the Bar or through the court’s verdict. Nobody could be allowed to cross the limits of the constitution/judicial pronouncements of this great country. Non-serious litigations/counsels and vested political interference in the system should also be dealt with firmly. The first hearing of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi case has clearly become victim of the shouting brigades threat, Congress politics and non-serious players.
(The writer is a spokesperson of Vishwa Hindu Parishad)
