'Atrocious' : Supreme Court Shocked By Plea Challenging Articles 20 & 22; Pulls Up Lawyers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 31) expressed shock at a writ petition filed challenging the constitutionality of Articles 20 and 22 of the Constitution and pulled by the lawyers for filing such a petition.

The Court asked the drafting counsel, Advocate-on-Record and the arguing counsel involved in the case to file affidavits explaining the circumstances under which such a petition was filed.

Previously,  on October 20,  the Court had asked the lawyers to be personally present before the Court. The Public Interest Litigation sought a declaration that Articles 20 and 22 are violative of Articles 19, 14 and 21.

When the matter was taken today, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that the PIL shook its conscience and went to the extent of terming it "atrocious"

"Advocates-on-Record are not just signing authorities, this practice needs to be stop. How can you file such a petition?" Justice Kaul expressed anguish.

"Who is the AoR? How do you sign off on such a case? Did you not read it? Being an AoR confers on you a certain status. Purpose of having an AoR is there's a preliminary screening of what is being filed by someone familiar with law & procedure.Our concern is, are you only a signing authority to file other people's petitions? Is it not a misuse of your license as an AoR?", Justice Kaul continued.

When the AoR expressed apology, Justice Kaul said that saying sorry would not solve the problem. "It's atrocious actually," Justice Kaul said and asked the lawyers how many years of practice they had. "Nine", came the reply.

"How can someone draft this prayer? Bar counsel licenses of all three should be removed. You should not be permitted to practice if you can file such a petition. This is an Art 32 petition in the highest court. It's completely shocked our conscience that such a petition could be filed," Justice Kaul firmly stated.

The bench did not confine its anguish to just oral remarks and proceeded to dictate an order recording its dismay :

“Present before us today are the drafting counsel, the AOR and the so-called main counsel. Each of them has standing in the bar for at least 9 years or more. This is too serious a matter to be left [unaddressed]...Let all the counsels file their affidavits that under what circumstances such a petition was filed. We are troubled by the fact that a recognised AOR signed such petition. On our query he says that he signed in good faith., this would imply the practice of filing the SLP before even examining the content.”

The bench also said that a methodology must be devised to ensure that AoRs don't act as mere signing authorities and invited suggestions from the bar.

"Idea is not to punish anyone, but to maintain some discipline in the profession," Justice Kaul said.