The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its decision on the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) petition seeking for the conversion of land assigned to the Supreme Court into a chamber block for lawyers.
A bench consisting of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and PS Narasimha heard the case before reserving its judgement.
The matter has been a cause of disaccord between the SCBA and the CJI for the last several weeks after the CJI rebuked SCBA president Vikas Singh on March 2 for pressing on the case’s urgent listing.
On March 2, Singh repeatedly raised the matter, notwithstanding the CJI’s statement that it would only be listed in ordinary course. Singh then indicated that he will go to the CJI’s house to have the case heard.
In response, the CJI ordered Singh to leave the court immediately, stating that he would not be intimidated and that Singh would be dealt just like any other litigant.
“You cannot expect the bench to be cowered down. I have never been browbeaten, and I will not allow it to happen in the final two years of my career. You are free to pursue your political ambitions outside of the court hall,” CJI said.
The CJI also reminded Singh that he was asking that land granted to the Supreme Court be distributed to lawyers in accordance with Article 32.
Surprisingly, following the heated exchange before CJI Chandrachud’s court earlier, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Neeraj Kishan Kaul apologised for Singh’s behaviour.
The SCBA’s executive committee (EC) afterwards “expressed solidarity” with Singh. It had also proposed to pass two resolutions, one of which called for action against lawyers who make statements that contradict the SCBA’s stand in the matter.
The second one sought the issuing of show-cause letters to Kaul and Sibal for their act of apologising to the CJI for Singh’s conduct.
The SCBA’s general body meeting was scheduled on March 16 to vote on the two resolutions.
Following to the EC meeting, more than 470 lawyers including Senior Advocates, and former Attornery General KK Venugopal (separately), wrote to the SCBA opposing to the two resolutions.
Taking cognizance of this, as well as the listing of the current plea, the EC adjourned the meeting.
