From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit on Wednesday dismissed as “misconceived” a petition by one Mursalin Asijith Shaikh, seeking to restrain Chief Justice-designate D Y Chandrachud from taking oath as the 50th CJI on November 9, saying it sees no reason to entertain the plea.
A counsel mentioned the petition, which was otherwise not listed in the day’s causelist, before CJI Lalit Wednesday morning for urgent listing, if possible on Thursday, but the Bench, which also comprised Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi, listed the matter forthwith for hearing at 12.45 PM.
During the hearing, he cited certain “irregularities and illegal acts” allegedly committed by Justice Chandrachud. The Bench, however, told him: “We do not see any substance in this petition.
He argued that Justice Chandrachud’s bench heard a special leave petition (SLP) arising out of an order in the Bombay High Court, in which his son had appeared as a counsel. He contended that “this is an admitted matter and the learned judge cannot say he was not aware of his son’s appearance as the HC order was annexed.
CJI Lalit shot back to show the proof that the said order was annexed to the SLP. “Show us that the order was part of the paper book,” he said.
After struggling for some time to find the annexure, the counsel requested that the matter be posted tomorrow. The CJI disapproved his request. “You said that you were prepared and that is why we decided to hear today itself.”
When the counsel requested again to adjourn the hearing, the CJI said: “Whatever you wish to argue, you argue now. If you have anything in substance, we are willing to hear you.”
The counsel failing to advance any further submissions, the Bench dismissed the petition.
The petition was filed on the basis of a representation filed by one Rashid Khan Pathan before the President of India against Justice Chandrachud. Pathan’s complaint became viral on social media and WhatsApp groups.
The counsel referred to a partisan stand in a case related to Covid vaccination as Justice Chandrachud’s bench allowed tagging when a senior advocate appeared, but no tagging was allowed when a junior lawyer raised a similar matter.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have issued public statements, condemning the letter circulated against Justice Chandrachud as baseless.
When the matter was taken up, the petitioner’s lawyer took objection to CJI Lalit hearing the case on the ground that it was he who had recommended the appointment of Justice Chandrachud as his successor. CJI overruled the objection, noting that “we are only on the point whether you have made out the case or not.”
