This Is Not The Way To Behave: Read Heated Exchange Between Justice Oka And Mahesh Jethmalani Before Bench Recused From Hearing
The Court hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs relating to the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam, and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani was appearing for the State.
The Supreme Court today witnessed a heated exchange between Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Justice Abhay S. Oka while the Court was hearing petitions seeking quashing of FIRs filed in connection with the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.
The exchange culminated with the Bench recusing from hearing the matter further and asking the State to approach the Chief Justice for reassignment to another bench.
State bureaucrats, including Anil Tuteja, who were granted interim protection not to be arrested in connection with the Enforcement Directorate’s investigation into a multi-crore liquor scam in the State of Chhattisgarh, had approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of cases.
Interim orders granted had been allowed to continue by the Court through multiple orders, including those dated September 2, 2024, and February 17 and March 17, 2025, where the Bench had noted that the petitioners had been cooperating with the investigation.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani was appearing for the state of Chhattisgarh and sought vacation of the interim order.
Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, questioning the State’s urgency in seeking vacation of the interim relief, stated, “The main matter is pending… why should we vacate interim order? He has attended… pursuant to the notice…”
Jethmalani, appearing for the State, responded, “We need their custodial interrogation… This is not the province of the Court. I am sorry, this is not the province of the Court.”
Justice Oka was not pleased with the said submission of the Senior Advocate. Justice Oka asked, “Are we powerless to grant the relief?”
Jethmalani insisted, “Yes, I say that in all seriousness.”
Justice Oka then said, “At the end of the list, we will hear you and decide this point, whether we can grant the relief... Why do you want to waste the time of the Court when matter is fixed after vacation? You argue at that time… he is attending (accused are cooperating for questioning).”
Justice Oka further added, “We will give you time… You argue that this Court is powerless to grant the relief.”
Jethmalani stated that he wished to argue on the conduct of the petitioners, alleging, “On two occasions they have not appeared. On two occasions that the quashing petition was listed...”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for some of the Petitioners, interjected, “Can we clarify who he is talking about? Because there are three matters. Let him clarify who he is talking about.”
Jethmalani replied, “We have been appearing... We have been appearing throughout. I will tell you Lordship, as far as these quashing applications are concerned, they have been pending since September. They were fixed specifically because I moved for vacation of interim order. I moved it in November 2024. They were fixed specifically. Your Lordship then said we will hear the quashing...”
Justice Oka then stated, “We are telling you, if that is the grievance, we will permit you to move the Chief Justice for transfer of this petition. We have been hearing so many matters. If you are making a grievance that matters are not reaching...”
Jethmalani responded, “I am not saying... No, no, it reached.” He then said, “Your Lordships may pass any order.”
Justice Oka then responded sternly, “Mr. Jethmalani, this is not the way to behave.”
Jethmalani repeated, “On two occasions, your Lordships fixed it. They did not appear.”
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, also appearing for some of the Petitioners, countered, “My Lord, that is completely incorrect.”
Justice Oka then said, “Mr. Jethmalani, matters which you appear… how many times we are granted adjournment?”
Jethmalani replied, “Never...”
Justice Oka said, “Not in this matter. Other matters, we are granted adjournments.”
Jethmalani added, “My Lord, let me tell you, whenever I have taken an adjournment, I have taken it two days or one week in advance.”
Sankaranarayanan responded, “Three times in this matter, Mr. Jethmalani has taken adjournments.”
Justice Oka then started dictating the order, “Considering the submissions made by Mr. Jethmalani, we permit Mr. Jethmalani to move the Court of the Chief Justice for transfer of these matters to appropriate bench.”
Jethmalani objected, “My Lord, that will further delay my proceedings. Yes. It is better Your Lordships fix the matter before the vacation.”
Justice Oka replied, “But we are giving liberty, you go to a better bench.”
Jethmalani clarified, “My Lord, Your Lordships are misunderstanding what I said. I did not say anything about the bench. I pointed out the conduct of the parties.”
Justice Oka said, “You are saying that matters is not reaching and… Mr. Jethmalani, if we start adopting this approach- which Advocate has taken an adjournment, how many times, it will be impossible for us to function.”
Jethmalani said, “…these matters are vital. They do not appear when the bail applications are there… This is an important matter, I leave it at that.”
Sankaranarayanan pressed, “Let him mention the date…”, to which Jethmalani said, “I will put it on record before this Court...”
Sankaranarayanan replied, “He does not have a date. Let him mention the date this took place. There has to be some responsibility. When you say that the Court entertained an adjournment plea…” and added, “If you are attacking the Court...”
Jethmalani responded, “Do not fish in troubled waters.”
Arora intervened, “My learned colleague has himself taken adjournments on dates when it was inconvenient to him. It is very, very unfair...”
Jethmalani addressed the Court, “I do not want to move another bench... Lordships have taken it that I am making an allegation against this bench. I say I have not.”
Justice Oka reiterated, “We have said... We have permitted you to mention the matter before Chief Justice for assigning to another bench. We have said so in our order.”
Arora commented, “That is very unfortunate. This is a thing that my learned friend has been doing... It is a provocation, specific provocation.”
Justice Oka told Meenakshi that the matter is over, to stop addressing the Court. “We do not get provoked… Time is running out for me. I do not want to waste time on all these”, Justice Oka said.
However, Arora added, “This is extremely unfortunate what has been done in this court.”
ASG SV Raju also appeared in the matter representing the Enforcement Directorate.
The Supreme Court had earlier noted in its orders that the Petitioners had been cooperating with the investigation and declined to vacate the interim relief.
In its February 17 order, the Bench recorded that the main matter was listed for final hearing in March, stating, “At this stage, we are not considering these applications,” while affirming that the petitioners shall “continue to cooperate with the investigation.” A subsequent order dated March 17 clarified an earlier factual error and confirmed that interim protection would continue subject to cooperation.
The Bench has now recused itself from hearing the petitions and granted liberty to mention the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate reassignment.
Cause Title: Anil Tuteja & Anr. v. Union of India (SLP(Crl) No.11790/2024)
