'You Have Liberty To Criticise Everybody Under The Sun, We As Judges Have To Follow Discipline' : CJI DY Chandrachud To Dushyant Dave

The listing of the cases related to cash-for-jobs scam from Tamil Nadu has become a subject matter of controversy in the Supreme Court.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan mentioned the matter for urgent listing before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Wednesday. He pointed out that in September 2022, a bench comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian had restored the criminal charges against DMK MLA Senthil Balaji, setting aside the High Court judgment. Bhushan explained that the Court further directed that in the remaining similar cases, the police should move for vacating the stay order granted by the High Court. Instead of doing that, the police agreed before the High Court for a de-novo investigation and the High Court passed an order allowing it. Challenging that, petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court.

At this juncture, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave interjected to raise a complaint regarding the listing of the case.  He took objection to the registry listing one case before another bench, when the connected matters are being heard by a bench of Justice Krishan Murari.

"We all acknowledge that your lordships registry is working hard. Registry has strict rules that any matter which arises from the same judgment must come to the same court. But these matters are being heard by some other court", Dave said.

"Since you are making a grievance, let me look at it in the evening. I don't have the papers with me", CJI said.

"It is being sent to another bench. Your registry must follow the rules. It cannot...", Dave urged.

"Mr.Dave, it is always easy to be irresponsible in your allegations against the registry. You have the liberty to criticise everybody under the sun. We as judges of this Court have to follow some discipline. And I am following it by looking into the matter and will assign a bench", CJI told Dave.

"I have utmost respect for the judiciary. I myself am a judge's son. My criticism is objective, not subjective", Dave clarified.

"Mr.Dave, your assessment that your criticism is objective may itself be subjective", CJI replied.

"Your lordships are on the other side, so your lordships will always think like that", Dave said.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that it is the prerogative of the master of the roster to assign a bench. "Whatever your lordships decide, we have to accept", SG said.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for some of the petitioners, submitted that the matter should have gone before the bench of Justice Ramasubramanian, since it arises from his judgment. "Somehow the matter went before Justice Krishna Murari's bench. Your lordships may resolve the issue", he said.

"Whichever bench it goes, it does not matter. It is most unfortunate that these kind of controversies come up before the court. May be it is best to go to somewhere else, so that nobody has an issue", Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said.

CJI assured that he will assign a bench after looking at the benches which have previously dealt with the matter.

(Correction : The first version of the report had incorrectly stated that Dave required the matter to be sent to J Ramasubramanian's bench. The report was subsequently rectified)