The Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai recently expressed concern about the inconsistency of the Supreme Court’s views expressed by different benches. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has seventeen benches, and that the benches frequently take contradictory viewpoints on the same issue.
The bench was also concerned about “indiscipline” among Supreme Court lawyers and the registry.
“Coming from High Courts, we (the Bench) notice that this is a court where indiscipline among lawyers is at an all-time high… Every day, at least 17 courtrooms are in operation. One Court takes ‘A’ view, another court takes ‘B’ view. As far as the Registry is concerned, the less said, the better,” it remarked.
A bench comprised of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Bela Trivedi made the observation while hearing a contempt petition initiated suo motu against Mohan Chandra (who happened to be a retired judicial officer) and his Advocate on Record for making “derogatory” remarks about the Karnataka High Court in a special leave petition.
Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave informed the bench that the AoR has offered an unqualified apology.
“It’s a serious mistake on his part. He didn’t read and he filed what came from Bangalore. Is it appropriate for a lawyer? Suppose tomorrow stenographer gives any judgement and we sign without reading it…what would happen?!”, the bench pointed out.
Advocate Dave stated that his goal was not to defend the advocate. The Court then proposed filing a discharge motion in this regard, stating that it wanted to convey a message to the AoRs.
“We also want to convey a message to the Advocates on record here because we believe that, because both of us (the judges) come from High Courts, the standard of the Bar is the lowest here.” The record advocates file petitions; they act like a postman; something comes from the High Court, and they simply file it without considering it,” the bench noted.
In agreement with the Bench, Dave stated that the AoR has been a part of the Bar for decades and that such an incidence had never happened before. We need to streamline the system, said Dave, adding that AoRs should serve as role models.
The Court then directed the Registry to take the required steps to serve notice to the putative contemnor number 1, the litigant.
“When the record advocate filed the plea, it was prepared by another counsel.” Another advocate stated, “That person is also equally culpable.”
“We are not interested in sending anyone to jails, particularly a person who has been a judicial officer for such a long period”, the bench stated.
“Even my learned friend, as an AoR should have been careful. I can’t absolve of that,” Advocate Dave added.
When issuing the contempt notice last November, the bench referred to a Constitution Bench decision in M.Y. Shareef and Another. The Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. (1955), who held that even a lawyer who signs such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty of contempt of court.
