"Your Lordship Is One Of The Most Patient Chief Justice I have Ever Seen : Dhawan To CJI Misra

"Your Lordship Is One Of The Most Patient Chief Justice I have Ever Seen : Dhawan To CJI Misra

Talk about courtroom humour, and Senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan never disappoints.

Dhawan again provided some lighter moments amidst the high-voltage Ayodhya case hearing in a packed courtroom No.1 of the Supreme Court today.

At one moment when Chief Justice Misra disagreed with Dhawan that he had not argued a particular point on an earlier date regarding reference of the case to a larger bench, Dhawan said “I disagree. I tried arguing. But your lordship did not allow me. Then something happened after which I decided to quit my practice”.

Then Dhawan went on to add:  "Your Lordship is one of the most patient Chief Justice I have ever seen. But sometimes you get ahead of yourself".

As the CJI smiled, the entire court erupted in laughter.

On February 8, the last date of hearing also the court not only took stock of the status of pleadings and submission of documents but was also marked by some sharp comments from Dhawan who appeared for a pro-Babri masjid party.

Dhawan had insisted that the issue was important and demanded day-to-day hearing by a constitution bench.

He also said that such a constitution bench should sit at a stretch and “not like now when it breaks often to hear other matters. There must be continuity”.

“ This is an important issue which should be heard by a constitution bench and there should be day to day hearing at a stretch not like now see how constitution bench hearing is being broken god knows when and why and some other cases are taken up”, he had said.

“Bearing in mind what has been observed in the Ismail Farooqui judgment, this matter is assumed importance not just for the country but globally...”,  he said.

Chief Justice Misra had then retorted:  “Why not? Litigants are waiting for justice. There are at least 700 cases which can be finished if we devote at least one and a half hours per day. There is nothing wrong in it”

It is to be noted that Dhawan had on December 11 announced his retirement from court practice following some sharp exchanges with CJI Misra during an earlier hearing of the Ramjanambhoomi dispute and Delhi Govt Vs Lt Governor power tussle case and then withdrew the decision on December 28.

Withdrawing his decision to retire, Dhawan wrote to CJI Misra that he would continue to fulfill his obligations in several pending cases such as the Babri Masjid dispute.

Besides, he said, several ex-justices of the court and a sitting judge, along with many senior and other colleagues had requested him to withdraw his statement about retirement.

“I owe and have learnt a lot from the Supreme Court and judicial system, including my colleagues, and have not repaid my debt,” he wrote.

“There are some things fundamentally wrong with the court and its functioning,” Dhawan wrote. “But I will never abandon my faith in the rule of law for which the entire judiciary including the legal community are custodians for the people.”

 Swamy Vs Dhawan Again At Ayodhya Hearing

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy today protested when senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan asked Chief Justice Dipak Misra not allow to the intervention application filed by him in the Ram temple case.

Dhawan, who appears for one of the original petitioners had said “Your lordship must also not allow the application filed by that gentleman sitting on the front on the right side. He is sitting on the front although he has nothing to do with the case".

Swamy shot back : “Earlier he had problem with my kurta-pyjama. Now it seems he has problem with me sitting in the front row. Why should not my petition be entertained and allowed? The case was brought out of the cold storage on my request”.

 During a early hearing when Swamy tried to convince the bench about his stand saying that he was raising the issue of fundamental right to worship guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution, his plea was opposed by Dhawan.

Dhawan told the court “Only the main parties should be allowed to argue” in the matter and “kurta-pyjama stuff should not be permitted".