The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea against appointing Justice DY Chandrachud as the next Chief Justice of India (CJI) [Mursalin Asijit Shaikh v. Union of India].

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice Ravindra Bhat a,nd Justice Bela M Trivedi considered a petition filed by Mursalin Asijith Shaikh.

"We see no reason to entertain this petition. The entire plea is completely misconceived. Thus dismissed," the Court ordered.

The petition, which was otherwise not listed in the cause list for today, was mentioned for urgent listing by the petitioner's counsel today morning. The counsel requested a posting tomorrow saying that the oath-taking ceremony is on November 9, 2022. CJI UU Lalit then said that the petition will be heard today itself at 12.45 PM.

The petition was filed on the basis of a representation filed by one Mr.Rashid Khan Pathan before the President of India against Justice Chandrachud. The complaint was made viral in social media and WhatsApp groups, which led by the Bar Council of India and several other bar associations to issue public statements strongly condemning the allegations and discarding them as baseless.

When the matter was taken, the petitioner's lawyer took objection to CJI Lalit hearing the case, as he had recommended Justice Chandrachud as the successor.

"We're only on the point whether you've made out the case or not", CJI Lalit said.

The counsel that in a case related to COVID vaccination, when a senior advocate appeared, Justice Chandrachud's bench allowed tagging, but when a junior advocate appeared in a similar matter, no tagging was allowed.

The counsel further contended that Justice Chandrachud's bench heard a special leave petition arising out of an order in the Bombay High Court in which his son had appeared as a counsel. "This is an admitted matter, the BCI said that learned judge was not aware that his son was appearing. It cannot be, as the order was annexed", he submitted.

The second issue had already been highlighted by one RK Pathan by way of a complaint to the CJI and the President of India, the plea pointed out.

The plea besides seeking action of contempt of court and other criminal action against Justice Chandrachud, also prayed for a direction to the Central government to refrain from appointing him as the CJI.

At this juncture, CJI Lalit asked the counsel to show proof that the said order was annexed to the SLP. "Show us that the order was part of the paper book?", CJI asked.

The counsel, after struggling for some time to find the annexure, requested that the matter be posted tomorrow. "You said that you were prepared and that is why we decided to hear", CJI did not appreciate the counsel's conduct.

"Whatever you wish to argue, you argue now", CJI told the counsel when he repeated the request to adjourn the hearing.

The apex court, however, made it clear that judicial orders passed by a judge cannot be grounds to challenge his appointment.

"You cannot argue or make such points here," Justice Bhat said.

"If you have anything in substance, we are willing to hear you", the CJI repeated.

As the counsel could not advance any further submission, the bench proceeded to dismiss the petition.

The bench, therefore, dismissed the plea.

References:

barandbench.com