Justice Chandrachud Could Have Simply Called The Bombay HC Judge, Didn't Do It- BCI Defends Justice Chandrachud
In a press release issued late in the day on Saturday, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has said that the complaint against Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is a scurrilous and malicious attempt to interfere with the functioning of the Judiciary.
The Press Release signed by BCI Chairman Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra says that if the Judge of the Supreme Court had any interest in the case allegedly connected to his son's client, he could have simply called the Bombay High Court Judge instead of passing a judicial order in the case.
"There is no relief granted and in any case by the Supreme Court, there is nothing to disclose that the Hon'ble Judge would be aware that his son had appeared in any matter, in the High Court, which is allegedly connected to the said case had the Judge of Supreme Court got any undue interest, he would have simply gave a call to the concerned Judge of High Court instead of passing a Judicial Order for such petty things", the BCI says.
As per the BCI, the fact that Justice Chandrachud chose to pass a judicial order instead of making a phone call to the High Court Judge shows that Justice Chandrachud had no interest in the case.
"Therefore, this itself proves that Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandrachud had no interest in the case. Any man of ordinary prudence can understand this simple thing", says the BCI.
The BCI also says that R.K.Pathan, who wrote the complaint does not represent any "Association of Litigants", and that the 'Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association' is his small group of a handful of Lawyers of Mumbai, who are in the habit of adopting "evil designs".
About the case in which Justice Chandrachud ought not to have heard as per the complaint, the BCI says that "As per our clear informations the parties to the said proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were different from the parties before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court".
The BCI also says that the grievance raised before the Apex Court in the case was not based on merit, but was that a petition was not being taken up for hearing before the Bombay High Court and an application for vacating an order of stay was not being considered. "All that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did was to request the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to consider the petition and if the exigencies of work do not permit the same, to consider the application for vacating the stay", the BCI says.
The BCI also says that there is nothing to disclose that Justice Chandrachud was aware that his son had appeared in any matter before the High Court.
The complaint filed before the President of India says that Justice Chandrachud passed an order in a case related to Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud's client and seeks that Chief Justice U. U. Lalit not recommend the name of Justice Chandrachud for the post of Chief Justice of India.