We won’t allow Bench Hunting, Bench-Hopping or Bench Avoiding; Justice Kehar in Sahara Judgment

In the Sahara Judgment delivered by the two Judge Bench consisting of Justce Radhakrishnan and Justice Kehar, the Supreme Court has come down heavily on Senior Counsels by saying that “if it was learned counsel’s posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility”Live Law extracts here the interesting, but bold statements of the Court upholding the Majesty of Law, emphasizing the Power of Indian Supreme Court;Para 8.” For, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Counsel, was now more forthright. He told us, that we should not hear the matter, because “his client” had apprehensions of prejudice. He would, however, not spell out the basis for such apprehension. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, came out all guns blazing, in support of his colleague, by posing a query: Has the Court made a mistake, serious enough, giving rise to a presumption of bias “even if it is not there”? It was difficult to understand what he meant. But seriously, in the manner Dr. Rajeev Dhawan had addressed the Court, it sounded like an insinuation.Para 8 “Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, then informed the Court, that “moments come in the profession, though rarely, when we tell the Judges of the Supreme Court, that you have committed a terrible [terrible] mistake, by passing an order which has violated the civil liberties of our client. … that the order passed is void”. And moments later, referring to the order, he said, “it is a draconian order” The seriousness of the submissions apart, none of them, even remotely, demonstrated “bias”Para 11 “If it was learned counsel’s posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility. We could at any time, during the course of hearing, walk out and make way, for another Bench to decide the matter, if ever we felt that, that would be the righteous course to follow. Whether or not, it would be better for another Bench to hear this case, will emerge from the conclusions, we will draw, in the course of the present determination.”Para 17 “There is no escape from, acceptance, or obedience, or compliance of an order passed by the Supreme Court, which is the final and the highest Court, in the country. Where would we find ourselves, if the Parliament or a State Legislature insists, that a statutory provision struck down as unconstitutional, is valid? Or, if a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, in exercise of its original jurisdiction, is not accepted for compliance, by either the Government of India, and/or one or the other State Government(s) concerned? What if, the concerned government or instrumentality, chooses not to give effect to a Court order, declaring the fundamental right of a citizen? Or, a determination rendered by a Court to give effect to a legal right, is not acceptable for compliance? Where would we be, if decisions on private disputes rendered between private individuals, are not complied with? “Para 20 “During our entire careers as Advocates practicing before the High Court and before this Court, and as Judges of different High Courts, as Chief Justices of High Courts in different States, and also, as Judges of this Court, we have yet to experience a demeanour of defiance, similar to the one adopted by SIRECL or SHICL or their promoter and directors.”Para 41 The bona fides of the above submission, are difficult to fathom. It seems to us, that rather than the petitioner tendering his explanation to this Court, for not complying with the orders passed by it, the petitioner’s counsel were posing a question to this Court to explain to them, the legitimacy of the procedure adopted by the Court. In our understanding, learned counsel who represented the petitioner, were surely insincere to the cause of justice, when they drummed their assertions, without blinking an eye; since they were aware, that the factual position was otherwise.For learned counsel for the petitioner, to advance such submissions, to state the least, was unimaginable. Both Mr. Ram Jethmalani and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, were lead counsel representing the contemnors in the contempt proceedings. They surely ought to have known better, because they had appeared in the contempt proceedings, in the defence of the contemnors. It is not for a Court, to tender any explanation to any litigant, or to his counsel. Accordingly, it should never be considered as obligatory, on the part of this Court, to tender any such explanation. Undoubtedly, it is open to a party to seek review, of an order passed by this Court, under Article 137 of the Constitution of India. Or to file a curative petition, after a review petition had been rejected, as laid down by this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra’s case ,if...

We won’t allow Bench Hunting, Bench-Hopping or Bench Avoiding; Justice Kehar in Sahara Judgment

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags