The Chief Justice of India (CJI), DY Chandrachud, recently expressed strong disapproval over a growing trend in the Supreme Court where multiple lawyers mention the same case before the bench, essentially trying to jump the queue to get a favourable hearing date. This is seen as an attempt to exploit the system and get ahead in line. He emphasized that lawyers cannot deceive the Court with such methods, stating: “This is a new practice… You cannot take the court for a ride. My personal credibility is at stake. I have to follow standard rules for all.”
Justice Chandrachud emphasized that his discretionary powers as CJI would not be used to accommodate such tactics, indicating that he is committed to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
This isn’t the first time that the CJI has spoken out against irregularities in the courtroom. He has been stressing the importance of following procedure and maintaining decorum since taking office. This move is consistent with his efforts to promote transparency and fairness in the Court.
Justice Chandrachud’s commitment to upholding courtroom standards is part of his broader efforts to enhance the Supreme Court’s functioning. He has made significant strides in digitization, ensuring smoother court processes and greater transparency. His leadership has been well-received by lawyers, who appreciate the improved efficiency and streamlined listing procedures.
It is worth noting that Justice Chandrachud has been making waves with his progressive judgments and remarks, both in and out of court. He has been vocal about various issues, including the need for an independent district judiciary, the importance of a free press, and the challenges faced by women and marginalized groups in the legal profession. His stance on this matter is just another example of his commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness.
The CJI recently reprimanded a lawyer for verifying an order’s specifics with the court master, stating: “How dare you ask the court master what I dictated in court? Have lawyers lost all sense?” This incident occurred during a top court hearing in October 3, where the lawyer confirmed the details of an arbitration order with the court master. Justice Chandrachud, set to retire on November 10, emphasized his authority, warning against such actions, saying: “Don’t try these funny tricks again.”
Justice Chandrachud has always spoken his mind in a blunt way against improper courtroom behaviour. Previously, he reprimanded a petitioner for using casual language, saying: “Don’t say yeah, yeah, yeah. Say yes. This is not a coffee shop. This is a court.” He also criticized a senior counsel seeking the Court’s assistance in ousting Mamata Banerjee as West Bengal chief minister.
In March this year, the CJI ordered security to remove senior advocate Mathews Nedumpara from the courtroom following a heated exchange during a NEET-UG hearing in March. In July this year, he reprimanded a lawyer for not wearing his neckband in court, emphasizing the importance of traditional attire for lawyers, which includes black coats and neckbands. The lawyer was trying to raise an urgent matter related to a demolition case, but the CJI wasn’t impressed by his casual attire. “Send an email, but where is your band? Is this some fashion parade going on?” he asked. When the lawyer explained he was in a rush, the CJI firmly replied: “Sorry, I cannot hear you if you are not in proper attire.”
Justice Arun Mishra, a former judge of the Supreme Court, had a reputation for being outspoken and passionate, which sometimes manifested in heated exchanges with lawyers. In 2020, during his farewell speech, he apologized for any harsh words he may have uttered, stating that he never meant to hurt anyone. He once told Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan: “One more word and I will not only issue contempt against you but will also ensure you are convicted.”
In 2017, the apex court expressed strong displeasure over lawyers violating court decorum and raising their voices during hearings. The then CJI, Dipak Misra, emphasized that such conduct will not be tolerated at any cost. This stern warning came during a Constitution bench hearing on whether a Parsi woman who married a Hindu loses her Parsi identity without converting. The Court had witnessed heated exchanges between senior counsels. Justice Misra criticized the senior counsels for thinking they can raise their voices, stating that it shows their inadequacy and incompetence.
The Allahabad High Court has also taken action against lawyers for not maintaining decorum in the Court. In one notable case, the Court banned lawyers’ strikes in Uttar Pradesh, citing apex court orders. This decision was made after the District Bar Association of Prayagraj frequently disrupted judicial proceedings, affecting not only the judiciary’s functioning, but also causing significant inconveniences to petitioners.
The Bombay High Court recently reprimanded a lawyer for attempting to hide a crucial court order, calling the action reprehensible and quite unacceptable. The case involved a woman who was abandoned by her husband and was living alone in a rented apartment while divorce proceedings were ongoing. The petitioners, who were the property owners, were accused of trespassing and damaging her property. The Court found that the lawyer representing the petitioners was trying to suppress key facts, including a family court order that restrained the woman’s eviction. The lawyer’s actions were deemed suppressio veri, or suppression of the truth. The bench, comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, emphasized that lawyers have a duty to present true facts and be transparent in legal proceedings.
In 2022, the Bombay High Court judge Justice Anuja Prabhudessai made it clear that advocates have a duty to maintain the dignity and decorum of the Court and there is no room for arrogance or intimidation. This came after one advocate made allegations that the Court was biased and unfair in prioritizing certain cases. The Court emphasized that such behaviour undermines public confidence in the judiciary and interferes with the administration of justice. Essentially, advocates must balance their duty to their clients with the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, last month, issued a stern warning to a lawyer who filed a petition on behalf of a deceased client, almost a month after the death. The lawyer claimed he was misled by someone into filing the petition, and even submitted a posthumous Power of Attorney with a signature from “beyond the grave”. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul noted that the lawyer’s actions were akin to “orchestrating the ultimate legal prank from beyond the grave” and warned him to exercise more caution in the future to avoid getting entangled in otherworldly activities. The Court accepted the lawyer’s unconditional apology and permitted the withdrawal of the petition.
—By Shivam Sharma and India Legal Bureau