Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud categorically said on Wednesday he will not intervene to shift cases already listed for hearing before a Supreme Court judge.
“If the case is listed before a judge, the judge will take a call. I will not say anything,” the Chief Justice said emphatically.
The CJI was responding to an urgent oral mentioning made by former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain’s lawyer, represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, in the morning about the listing of his bail petition in the Delhi liquor policy case before a Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi on December 14.
Mr. Singhvi said a Special Bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and Trivedi was already hearing the case.
“We have been arguing before the Special Bench. The case is already partially heard… Now, today, it has been listed before a Bench headed by Justice Trivedi. Let it continue to be heard by the earlier Special Bench,” Mr. Singhvi urged.
Post-lunch, when the court re-convened, the Chief Justice informed Mr. Singhvi that there had been a communication from the office of Justice Bopanna that he could not resume his judicial duties after the Diwali vacations due to medical reasons. The judge’s office had asked all the part-heard matters before him to be released. Consequently, the case of Mr. Jain was shifted to the pusine judge, Justice Trivedi, on the Bench.
“It is very easy to fling allegations and letters,” the Chief Justice said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, said the “only way to deal with malicious letters is by ignoring them”.
This development on Mr. Jain’s bail plea has come amidst a shadow cast by the letters of two senior lawyers, Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan, to the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court Registry. Both lawyers have alleged “irregularities” in the listing of other cases in the apex court.
Mr. Dave, in his open letter to the Chief Justice on December 6, had said cases involving human rights, freedom of speech, democracy and functioning of statutory and constitutional institutions were suddenly “taken away” from Benches hearing them and listed before other Benches.
He said matters, instead of remaining with the presiding judge of the Bench which earlier issued notice had followed the puisne judge when the latter started heading a new Bench in “clear disregard” of rules, procedure and established conventions. The senior lawyer had said the Chief Justice as the ‘master of the roster’ on the administrative side of the court should look into the issue.
The letter was penned a few days after Mr. Dave, on November 29, appearing before a Bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi in a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption concerning a fresh inquiry into corruption charges against former Chief Minister Edappadi Palaniswami in an alleged State Highway tender scam, questioned the move to take the case out of a Bench led by Aniruddha Bose, before which it was listed previously. The Bench headed by Justice Trivedi, who was earlier the puisne judge in Justice Bose’s Bench, dismissed the case on December 8.
Mr. Bhushan had written to the Registrar (Listing) of the Supreme Court about the trajectory of a batch of petitions filed by advocates and journalists charged under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for their work and critical views about the State response to the Tripura violence of October 2021.
These petitions had been earlier listed before a Bench headed by Justice Chandrachud, which had passed substantive orders to protect the petitioners from coercive action by the State. In October 2023, the case however came up before a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Trivedi, which ordered the cases to be listed before the “appropriate Bench”.
However, instead of being listed before Justice Chandrachud again, the petitions had come up for hearing before a Bench headed by Justice Trivedi on November 29. Eom
