Targeting judges becoming a trend; this must stop: SC
NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed anguish over an emerging “trend of targeting judges” and said this “must stop”, while indicating that it may impose an exemplary cost of Rs 25 lakh on an organisation for raking up the issue of “conflict of interest” against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra.
A charitable organisation ‘Bhartiya Matdata Sangathan’, in its plea, has alleged that in disregard of constitutional morality, a relative of the CJI, who is an MP from Odisha, was practising as a senior lawyer in the courts and tribunals here.
A bench, comprising the CJI and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, had on July 9 reserved its verdict on a PIL filed by Bharitya Janata Party leader Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to ban legislators from practising as advocates. Taking strong note of the interim plea of the organisation in the PIL on which the verdict has already been reserved, the bench said, “This has become a trend of targeting judges. This trend must stop. If you have to make the allegation, please make them at the outset so that we can deal with them.”
Justice Chandrachud did not agree to the submissions of some lawyers that the organisation be asked to pay a fine of ₹50,000, ₹1 lakh and ₹5 lakh for making such scandalous allegations and said, “I think that ₹five lakh is not the upper limit. I was thinking of (imposing) ₹25 lakh”.
Deprecating the practice of targeting judges, the bench said “ultimately, it (allegation) affects the institution”.
The bench, which passed over the matter thrice during the day, refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the general secretary of the organisation and told him that Attorney General K K Venugopal was suggesting that a case of contempt was being made out. “Are you the general secretary of the organisation? Did you pass the resolution before filing this? Do you take the responsibility of filing this,” the bench asked. It also asked the lawyer, who is the office bearer of the organisation, whether he had taken any legal advice before filing the application. “There are judgements, which say that the advocate-on-records (AoRs) are responsible for filing such an applications,” the bench said.
Venugopal said that the AoRs are responsible for all the filings in the case. Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for one of the parties, however, said that it appeared that the AoR was not aware of such filing in the case and suggested imposing of a fine of ₹50,000 on the organisation.
Venugopal then referred to the “great tragedy” in Kerala and said the cost, to be imposed in the case, should be deposited in the Kerala relief fund, besides suggesting that a case of contempt was made out in the present case.