News Analysis India

Tag: S A Bobde

  • ‘CJI S A Bobde wanted Shahrukh Khan to be part of panel to resolve Ayodhya dispute’

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: Outgoing Chief Justice of India S A Bobde wanted Bollywood superstar Shahrukh Khan to be part of mediation process to resolve the Ayodhya land dispute.

    The interesting fact was revealed to public for the first time by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President and senior advocate Vikas Singh during his address on occasion of the farewell ceremony for the CJI.

    The mediation panel was set up by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi in March 2019 to resolve the Ayodhya dispute.

    Singh, praising the endeavour of Justice Bobde, said that the actor had agreed, but the process could not come through.

    He said that while Justice Bobde was in the initial stage of Ayodhya hearing, he was of firm view that the problem could be resolved through mediation.

    “While on the Ayodhya dispute, I must give out a secret between me and Justice Bobde. While he was in the initial stage of the hearing, he asked me if Shahrukh Khan can be a part of the committee. He asked me because he knew I know the family of Khan. I discussed this matter with Khan and he was willing to take it.

    “Khan even said the foundation stone of mandir be laid by Muslims, and the foundation of masjid be laid by Hindus. But mediation process failed and so the plan was dropped. But his willingness to resolve communal tension through mediation was noteworthy,” Singh said.

    The mediation panel had comprised former Supreme Court judge Justice FMI Kalifulla, Art of Living Foundation’s Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.

    As the mediation process failed, the apex court heard the matter and five-judge bench unanimously paved way for construction of temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

    Justice Bobde, who decided several key cases during his tenure, including the historic Ayodhya verdict, was administered oath as the 47th CJI in November 2019 and is retiring today.

  • COVID crisis: SC allows Salve to withdraw as amicus in case, raps top lawyers for ‘imputing motives’

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Friday expressed deep anguish over its criticism by some lawyers for “something which was not part of its order” in the suo motu case related to framing of national policy on the COVID-19 pandemic and said “this is how institution is being destroyed”.

    A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, who is demitting office as the 47th CJI, lamented imputation of motive by some senior bar members while allowing senior advocate Harish Salve to withdraw as an amicus curiae from the case after he said that he did not want it to be decided under the shadow that he was friends with Justice Bobde from “school and college days”.

    The bench, also comprising justices L Nageswara Rao and S Ravindra Bhat, took note on Thursday of the pandemic situation due to sudden surge in COVID-19 cases and mortality and said it expected the Centre to come out with a “national plan” to deal with distribution of essential services and supplies, including oxygen and drugs.

    ALSO READ: I leave with the satisfaction that I did my best, says CJI SA Bobde

    “You (SCBA President) have read the order. Is there any intention to transfer the case… Even before reading the order there was criticism about something which was not there in order. This is how institution is being destroyed,” the bench told senior advocate and SCBA President Vikas Singh.

    At the outset of the proceedings conducted via video conferencing, the bench observed it did not stop high courts from hearing cases related to COVID-19 management in the country.

    “We never said a word and did not stop the high courts. We asked the Centre to go to the high courts and report to them. What kind of perception are you talking about? Talk about these proceedings,” the bench told senior advocate Dushyant Dave.

    “You have imputed motives to us without reading the order,” a visibly irked bench told Dave.

    “Entire country thought that you will transfer,” Dave replied.

    Did the order say so, the bench asked and fixed the case for hearing on April 27 as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time for filing the Centre’s response to the notice issued on Thursday.

    At the outset, Salve, appointed as the amicus to assist the bench in the case, urged the bench to allow him to withdraw from the case in view of “unfair” statements of some senior lawyers.

    “We are also pained at reading what some senior lawyers have to say on Salve”s appointment as amicus in the matter,” the bench said, adding that it was a “collective decision” of all the judges at the bench.

    Terming the case to be very “sensitive” and “important”, Salve said, “I do not want that the case be decided in this shadow on the ground that I knew the CJI from school and college. These kinds of allegations have been made.”

    Salve referred to bitter language used by some lawyers on his appointment as the amicus and said, “I do not want any side show. The language of the narrative now is very different”.

    CJI Bobde, on his last day at the bench, said, “We will honour your sentiments. The only thing is that now, we will have to start looking for some amicus curiae who we do not know in future. Unfortunately, I do not have any future in judiciary now.

    “We were also pained at reading what some senior advocates have to say. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion”.

    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested Salve not to withdraw from the case as the amicus on the ground that no one should succumb to such pressure tactics.

    “We are not in a position to malign each other. I saw on digital media literally abusing…a counsel should not succumb to such tactics. Salve should reconsider,” the law officer said.

    “My lord (the CJI) is retiring today. He deserves a loving farewell,” Mehta said.

    Earlier on Thursday, the bench took note of the pandemic situation due to sudden surge in COVID-19 cases and mortality and said it expected the Centre to come out with a “national plan” to deal with distribution of essential services and supplies, including oxygen and drugs.

    Observing that oxygen to patients infected with the virus is said to be an “essential part” of treatment, it had said it seemed that a certain amount of “panic” has been generated due to which people have approached several high courts seeking reliefs related to the prevailing situation. 

    ALSO WATCH:

  • SC closes proceedings on SCBA plea against SOP for hybrid hearing, lawyers’ body to write to CJI

    By PTI
    NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Tuesday closed the proceedings on bar body SCBA’s plea challenging the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for hybrid hearing in the court and said that little can be done on the judicial side.

    Later in the evening, members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) held a meeting and unanimously decided to write a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde, requesting him to hear the grievances of advocates against the SOP and if a meeting is not held then they will take out a peaceful candle march on Thursday.

    A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R Subhash Reddy said it had endeavoured to facilitate an interaction with the judges’ committee so that the problems perceived to be faced by the Bar can be ironed out.

    “That course appears not to be acceptable to the Bar,” the bench said, adding that “the aforesaid being the situation, in our perspective, it is not a subject which can be discussed in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It relates to the administrative working of the Supreme Court”.

    The top court noted that the final view of the seven-judge committee, a panel looking after the resumption of full functioning of the court after the COVID-19 pandemic forced it to restrict its functioning, was that it does not find any reason to revisit the issue.

    “The final view of the Committee is that since SOP was prepared and published after due consultation with the representatives of the SCBA and SCAORA, the Committee did not find any reason in revisiting the issue and in meeting the representatives of the Bar at this stage”, it said.

    The bench said it has been observed by the committee that in case there is any grievance or objection with regard to the functioning of SOP or against any particular part or term of SOP, and if any such issue requires any modification/addition, the same may be placed before it.

    Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who is also the president of SCBA, strongly opposed this approach of the Committee and submitted that the earlier meetings with the Registry have not really considered the perspective of the advocates and the problems being faced by the lawyers.

    He said it was his view that the SOP must go as a whole and a fresh SOP must be drawn.

    The top court then noted in its order that it put to Singh, whether it would be acceptable to him to make suggestions/modifications in the existing SOP so that the same could be discussed with the Registry and thereafter placed before the Committee as recorded in the minutes dated March 19.

    Singh said this course is not acceptable to him and he would like to discuss the matter only with the Judges’ Committee.

    “The result is that there appears to be some kind of impasse on this issue as the course suggested by the Committee is not acceptable to the representatives of the Bar,” the bench said, while disposing of the plea.

    Singh, who took objection to the order passed by the bench, said, “We have no choice but to take agitation path. If your lordship feels that Supreme Court is above the law, we will take the law in our own hands”.

    Justice Kaul, took objections to the submissions of Singh and said, “this approach of yours will take you nowhere”.

    In its order, the top court noted the number of meetings held by the judges committee and said that minutes of such meetings indicate the representatives of the bar participated in the consultation process leading to finalisation of the SOP.

    Later in the evening, SCBA members held the meeting and decided to write to the CJI and to take out peaceful candle march on March 25, from the Supreme Court premises to the India Gate to show solidarity against the SOP.

    On March 16, the top court has said its judges committee, be requested to listen to the bar members to resolve differences on the new SOP on commencement of hybrid hearing of cases.

    It had asked the secretary general of the apex court to request the judges’ panel to hear the members of the new committee of the SCBA, which has alleged that they were not consulted while finalisation of SOP on hybrid hearing.

    On March 12, the top court had orally observed that its SOP on commencement of hybrid physical hearing from March 15 would go if it has been framed without consulting the bar body.

    It had sought minute of the meetings held by the judges committee and said that the court will look into whether bar members were consulted or not.

    The top court, which has been hearing cases through video-conferencing since March last year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, came out on March 5 with the SOP and a day after, the newly-elected executive committee of SCBA rejected it in an emergent meeting.

    ‘On an experimental basis, and as a pilot scheme, the final hearings/regular matters listed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays may be heard in the hybrid mode, as may be decided by the bench, considering the number of parties in a matter as well as the limited capacity of the courtrooms; all other matters, including those listed on Mondays and Fridays, shall continue to be heard through video/tele-conferencing mode,’ said the SOP issued by the apex court.

  • ‘SC’s query to rape accused on marrying girl was based on judicial records’: Source

    The remarks by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde on Monday during the hearing of a plea of the accused had invited sharp reactions.