Supreme Court Judge Raises Concerns About Inconsistency In Views Of Benches, Indiscipline Of AoRs

Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai on Wednesday expressed concerns about the inconsistency in the views made by different benches of the Supreme Court. He noted that there are seventeen benches in the Supreme Court and that benches often take inconsistent views on the same subject.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Bela Trivedi also made critical remarks regarding "indiscipline" amongst the Supreme Court lawyers and registry.

“Coming from High Courts we (the Bench) notice that, this is a court where indiscipline in the highest amongst lawyers... Now there are at least 17 court halls working every day. One Court takes ‘A’ view, another court takes ‘B’ view. As far as the Registry is concerned, the less said, the better.”

The bench was hearing a contempt petition initiated suo motu against a petitioner (who happened to be a retired judicial officer) and his Advocate on Record for making "derogatory" remarks against the Karnataka High Court in a special leave petition.

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave informed that the AoR had tendered an unconditional apology in the matter.

“It’s a serious mistake on his part. He didn’t read and he filed what came from Bangalore.”

“Is it appropriate for a lawyer? Suppose tomorrow stenographer gives any judgement and we sign without reading it….what would happen?!”, the Bench was quick to point out.

Dave said that his objective wasn’t to defend the advocate. The Court then suggested to move a discharge application in this regard while adding that it intended to send a message to the AoRs.

Standard of Bar worst, AoRs Acting as postman, filing whatever sent to them

“We also want to send some message to the Advocates on record here because we find that, since both of us (the judges) are coming from High Courts, the standard of the Bar is worst here. The advocates on record file petitions; they act as a post man, something comes from the High Court and they just file it without considering it.”

Agreeing with the Bench, Dave pointed out that the AoR has been a part of the Bar for decades and such an incident had never occurred in the past.  We need streamline the system, Dave said while adding that AoRs should be role models.

The Court then ordered the Registry to take necessary steps to ensure that notice is served to the alleged contemnor number 1, the litigant.

“While the advocate on record has filed the plea, it was drafted by another lawyer. That person too, is equally responsible”, another advocate said.

“We are not interested in sending anyone to jails, particularly a person who has been a judicial officer for such a long period”, the Bench observed.

“Even my learned friend, as an AoR should have been careful. I can’t absolve of that”, Dave added.

While issuing contempt notice last November, the court referred to a judgment of the Constitution Bench in M.Y. Shareef and Another v. The Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Nagpur and Ors. (1955) which held that even a lawyer who subscribes his signatures to such derogatory and contemptuous averments is guilty for committing contempt of the Court.

Case Title: Mohan Chandra P. vs State of Karnataka | SLP (Crl) 19043/2022