Surprising That Advocates Seek Listing Of Cases Before A Specific Judge, It Is Easy To Fling Allegations And Letters: CJI Responds To Allegations About Listing Of Cases Before Some Benches

Responding to multiple letters and submissions from Senior Advocates expressing apprehensions regarding the alleged changing of Benches hearing cases, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud today remarked that he finds it particularly surprising when members of the Bar seek the prioritized listing of their cases before a specific judge.

"Very easy to fling allegations and letters," remarked the CJI. The CJI made the remarks in the context of the objections raised today by the Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi on the listing of the Special Leave Petition of the Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain before the Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Recently Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave wrote a letter to the CJI Chandrachud, expressing reservations about the manner in which cases were being assigned to Benches in the Supreme Court. In a similar vein, Advocate Prashant Bhushan conveyed his apprehensions in a letter addressed to the registrar of the Supreme Court, specifically highlighting concerns about a cluster of cases challenging the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act being assigned to Justice Trivedi.

Today Senior Advocate Singhvi, representing Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain, made an urgent mention before the CJI objecting to Jain's SLP being listed before Justice Trivedi and requested an adjournment until January, advocating for the matter to be heard by the Bench led by Justice Bopanna. 

"I am troubling your lordships with the unlisted mentioning due to urgency. We couldn't do it earlier due to the Constitution Bench. We had told the other Bench presided over by Justice Bela Trivedi that it was the Bench of Justice Bopanna and Justice Trivedi which had heard for more than 2 hours, a special bench assigned by your lordships. This is the matter of Satyendar Jain. Now Justice Bopanna will sit in January, so we told her that we will seek clarity. She allowed us to seek clarification here. It's a part-heard matter argued for more than 2 hours" submitted Singhvi. 

However, the CJI refused to pass any directions and stated, "If it is listed before a Judge, the Judge will take a call of what to do. I will not control what the Judge is doing in the matter listed before her."

After the lunch break, when the Bench reconvened, the Chief Justice of India restated his earlier remarks, emphasizing that it is disconcerting for any member of the bar to expressly request a particular judge for their case, stating that making such requests is akin to flinging allegations and letters.

Regarding the listing of the matter involving AAP leader Satyendar Jain before Justice Trivedi, the CJI clarified that Justice Bopanna, who initially heard the case before Diwali, did not resume duties post the break due to a medical absence. Consequently, the matter was assigned to Justice Trivedi's bench, as she, along with Justice Bopanna, had previously heard the case.

Present in the Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also remarked "I will say, the only way to deal with such malicious letters is by ignoring them."

Recently, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Senior Advocate Dr. Adish C Aggarwala wrote to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud stating that he was shocked to read “an open letter” to the CJI by a senior member of the Bar. The SCBA President alleged in the letter that open letters are written to attract publicity and to attract clients with meritless cases, who want to put pressure on Courts to decide cases in a certain manner. He has also said in his letter that the fact that Courts are now giving equal importance to junior as well as senior members of the bar, has not gone down well with some Senior Advocates.