'Unjustified' : Senior Lawyers Criticize Supreme Court's Move To Transfer COVID Matters From High Courts To Itself

The Supreme Court is being widely criticized within the legal community for its decision to take suo moto cognizance of COVID19-related issues while the High Courts are dealing with the same.Today morning, Chief Justice of India SA Bobde gave clear indications that the Supreme Court wanted to take over the issues from High Courts. The CJI said that six different High Courts dealing the matters have caused "confusion and diversion of resources", though no one has approached the Supreme Court raising such a complaint.The bench, also including Justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat, appointed Senior Advocate Harish Salve (who incidentally happened to be in the VC hearing in a case seeking reopening of Vedanta's sterlite plant) as an amicus curiae in the matter.The Supreme Court's extraordinary move came after the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi made urgent interventions on Wednesday night to ensure supplies of oxygen and medicines to COVID-19 patients, after making certain strong critical observations against the Central Government.While social media and messenger groups are abuzz with critical remarks against the Supreme Court, LiveLaw reached out to certain senior members of the legal fraternity for their views.Retrograde Step, Senior Advocate Mukul RohatgiSenior Advocate and former Attorney General of India Mukul Rohatgi said :"I completely disagree with the view of the SC. High Courts are competent to deal with the issue as it unfolds in the concerned state. Local conditions and local problems and the solutions can be best addressed by them. It's a retrograde step. High Courts will become redundant now", he said.Mr.Rohatgi also said that the Supreme Court's order of ad-interim stay on the Allahabad High Court direction to impose lockdown in 5 UP cities to contain the COVID19 surge was wrong."Even the ad-interim stay of the Allahabad High Court order was wrong", he added.Uncalled for and unjustified : Senior Advocate Dushyant DaveSenior Advocate and former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave said :"The Supreme Court's suo moto intervention seeking to restrain the High Courts from discharging their constitutional duties is absolutely uncalled for and unjustified, firstly, for the simple reason that the supreme Court has been sitting as a silent spectator to the happenings in the country for the last few months. They should have seen the writing on the wall. The Supreme Court, if at all it was concerned about the citizens, should have intervened suo moto earlier to ensure that the government was functioning properly and that adequate hospitals, vaccines, medicines, oxygen supplies were available for COVID patients. The government has been sleeping and the Supreme Court also has been sleeping unfortunately over this period. Therefore, morally Supreme Court is unjustified in intervening when the High Courts have decided to intervene.Secondly, High Courts are in a better position to know the local conditions. Therefore, the Supreme Court sitting in Delhi really have no business in interfering with the High Courts' functioning. High Courts are independent, not subordinate to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, every life matters today. If High Courts' intervention, however unpalatable it might be to the SC judges, can save few lives, then there is no reason that the Supreme Court should intervene. Supreme Court's intervention, far from aiding the citizens and protecting their right to life, is likely to result in loss of lives and in violation of Article 21. The Supreme Court will be well advised to back off"Dave was also criticized the appointment of Senior Advocate Salve as an amicus curiae in the case and termed it "uncalled for"."Mr Salve is a very able lawyer and I have no doubt about Salve's abilities. And Salve is a very close friend of Chief Justice Bobde - a child hood friend. There is no reason why Mr Salve should again and again be appointed by Chief Justice Bobde as amicus curiae. Particularly because, Mr.Salve is not in India. He has been a non-resident and living in London for a long time. He does not know the realities of India. He does not know the sufferings of Indian people. He does not know the pain of Indians. Whatever be his abilities, frankly Mr. Salve has conflict of interest, because he represents the biggest industrial houses of the country, including Sterlite. Mr.Salve's statement to reopen the Sterlite plant itself frankly disentitles him to carry on as amicus curiae. I am really disturbed that Chief Justice Bode has appointed Mr.Salve as amicus when he is not available in India. There are many many top class, fiercely independent lawyers in this country, and Mr.Salve's proximity to the government of the day is well known. He has appeared to defend the government directly and indirectly in large number of cases during Covid".Dave further asked "It is a very serious issue why the Supreme Court has intervened. Is it to help the government for it to...

'Unjustified' : Senior Lawyers Criticize Supreme Court's Move To Transfer COVID Matters From High Courts To Itself

Manu Sebastian

Tags