'Easy to fling allegations': CJI flags bar members asking for particular judge to hear matter

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud Thursday said that it is very "easy to fling allegations and letters" as he clarified that the bail plea of AAP leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a money laundering case was listed before a bench headed by Justice Bela M Trivedi as Justice A S Bopanna was unavailable due to illness. Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud Thursday said he was extremely surprised when a bar member wanted a particular judge to hear his matter. The CJI made this observation while clarifying to senior advocate A M Singhvi, representing AAP leader Satyendar Jain, that his client’s case was listed before Justice Bela Trivedi because Justice AS Bopanna wrote to the registry that he won't be able to hear the case due to medical reasons.

"It is very easy to fling allegations and letters," an anguished CJI said. Justice Chandrachud made the remark in the context of an unsavoury row that has erupted in the top court after two senior members of the Bar-Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan-wrote separate letters to him voicing their angst over "certain happenings" in the listing of cases and their reallocation to benches other than those that were supposed to hear them.

A bench headed by CJI and comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra told Singhvi that the court had the papers looked at. The CJI said in September 2023, the bench said to list the matter on 25 September 2023, and then Justice Bopanna and Justice Trivedi said to list the matter on 24 November which would be after Diwali break.

“In the meanwhile, the interim bail granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing, which is November 24, 2023. Thereafter, the matter comes up on November 24, before a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma”, said the CJI. Singhvi said it was adjourned twice after that.

The CJI said, “On November 24, that bench says list the matter on December 4, interim orders to continue till December 4. On December 4, it says to list on December 11, interim order to continue. Now, finally, on December 11, it says at the request of senior counsel list the matter on December 14. Now, I tell you one thing because a lot of letters are flung around at the registry saying why the matter was pulled out”.

CJI said, “I tell you the reason for it. It is very easy to fling letters and allegations…there was a communication from the office of Justice A S Bopanna, I do not want to disclose the reasons why he is not on duty that will infringe on his privacy but I can only say for medical reasons my lord didn’t resume duty after Diwali vacation. There is a communication from his residential office to the registry…..therefore, this matter was assigned on November 21, 2023 to Justice Trivedi who was part of the bench. There are medical reasons for the learned judge not to be on duty…..”

The CJI said Justice Bopanna said that all matters which were heard by him should be kept as de-part heard, therefore this matter was assigned to Justice Trivedi who had last heard the matter.

CJI said “She (Justice Trivedi) will take a call as I told you it is none of my business what the judge does on the judicial side. The learned judge will take a call on what is to be done about the matter. The reason why the judge has to hear the matter is because there is an application for extension of interim bail. He has been granted interim bail for a certain period that bail sought to be extended…otherwise, your client will have to surrender if the judge doesn’t hear”.

Singhvi said, “on three dates, we told the learned judge that it will be considered that since the learned judge is a member of the bench presided by Justice Bopanna. Since he is likely to sit in January. Your lordship may hear it in that combination or we mention to the CJI….the person has been on bail because of spine operation and now a fracture ... if it goes to January….”.

CJI said, “I thought I clarify, not saying that you have done it…..I am not saying about Dr Singhvi, you are the last person who does it….but extremely surprising that any bar member of saying I want a particular judge to hear my matter and that this particular judge shouldn’t hear my matter….”.

Singhvi said he had to point out that nobody knew the position regarding the bench and he had argued the matter for two hours before a bench presided by Justice Bopanna. CJI said Justice Bopanna had to proceed on medical leave and he intimated to the registry through his office.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, said Dr Singhvi would never do that but the only thing I'll say is that the only way to deal with such malicious letters is by ignoring them and not dignifying them.

Later, a bench comprising Justice Trivedi and Justice Sharma ordered that the interim medical bail granted earlier this year to AAP leader and former Delhi health minister Satyendar Jain be extended till January 8, 2024.

The Supreme Court had first granted Jail medical bail on May 26 this year and the same had since been extended till date. The bench was hearing the bail plea of the former Delhi Health Minister in the money-laundering case against him.

Earlier, during the day, CJI had said that he will not control what the judge is doing in the matter listed before her, and the judge who has the case would decide, while declining to intervene on the issue of listing of AAP leader Satyendar Jain’s petition for bail in a money laundering case before a bench headed of Justice Bela M Trivedi.

Singhvi had mentioned the matter before a bench headed by CJI and comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. Singhvi sought deferment of the hearing of the case listed before the bench headed by Justice Trivedi, citing that the matter was earlier heard by a bench headed by Justice AS Bopanna.