Click the Play button to listen to article

Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, the Amicus Curiae in the DGP Appointments matter, today took serious objection to a comment made by Odisha Advocate General Pitambar Acharya that he (Amicus) was arguing the matter as though he was appearing for the petitioner. 

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with pleas challenging actions of the Odisha government in respect of DGP appointment this year. The petitioners allege that the process violated the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh case. 

During the hearing, the Odisha AG commented that the Amicus seemed to be presenting arguments as though he was appearing for the petitioner side. "He is presenting as if he's representing [petitioner]...the very first day, without looking at the brief he makes...", he said.

Taking serious objection, the Amicus demanded that the AG withdraw his comment. To the bench, he said, "I seek your lordships' protection. I will withdraw from this case if such an allegation by an Advocate General is allowed to be on record. In my 50 years of practice, I have not been told that I have been unfair in this court. I will not accept this. The Advocate General has to withdraw this comment."

While CJI responded by saying that the bench will not accept any allegation, Justice Bagchi expressed that the bench does not take note of such comments. It may be recalled that a heated exchange took place between Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta yesterday, over the SG's 'Naxalite' remark during the hearing of Vande Mataram case (filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna). In that hearing, Muralidhar demanded that the SG withdraw his comment, following which, Justice Bagchi expressed that the bench does not take note of such comments. 

In the DGP matter, when Justice Bagchi said that the Amicus was not on trial, the Amicus expressed anguish, saying that he had been put on trial considering the State AG's comment. "I have assisted this court as Amicus in many cases. This can't be allowed to pass...in the most sensitive cases, nobody has said such a thing" he remarked. Later, Odisha AG expressed that he had profound respect for the Amicus, as a lawyer, colleague and senior, and his only intention was to say that facts must be properly put before the court. 

The CJI subsequently said in a lighter vein that an Amicus is usually only liked by the Court. He also expressed that an Amicus is fair to all and that is exactly what Ramachandran had been doing in the present case. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Jharkhand, also voiced appreciation for the Amicus, saying he was far too senior a lawyer with impeccable integrity. "He's certainly not biased", Sibal said. 

Case: PRAKASH SINGH AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 310/1996 (and connected cases) 

Tags: