“You May Be The President, Don’t Raise Your Voice”, Justice MR Shah To SCBA President
story
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar on Tuesday expressed unhappiness with Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President, SCBA, sternly stating that while Mr. Singh "may be the President", he must not "raise his voice" and "try to browbeat the Court".The bench was hearing a SLP by a Special Judge (POCSO Cases) from Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan against the November 2020 decision...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar on Tuesday expressed unhappiness with Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President, SCBA, sternly stating that while Mr. Singh "may be the President", he must not "raise his voice" and "try to browbeat the Court".
The bench was hearing a SLP by a Special Judge (POCSO Cases) from Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan against the November 2020 decision of the Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur where it was held that the remarks and observations made in the order sheet by the SLP petitioner- judicial officer against a police official shall stand expunged and set aside.
The Single Judge had observed that "making direct aspersions and remarks in the order-sheets against I.O. and police personnel merely at the asking of the prosecution or on account of any statement recorded of a witness who has not filed any case or complaint before the court, with regard to coercion and force being exercised on them, would be wholly unjustified". The Single Bench had gone on to order the Registry to "place copy of this order before the Registrar General for further administrative purpose".
On Tuesday, Singh, who is appearing for the SLP petitioner, expressed dismay over SC's order dated January 12, 2023, passed by the bench of Justices A. S. Bopanna and C. T. Ravikumar in this matter, directing the Registry to place the matter before the CJI for placing the matter before an appropriate bench.
The order stated that the matter is required to be taken up in the combination of Justices M.R.Shah and C.T.Ravikumar as it was heard in part by the said Bench.
Singh on the other hand contended that the matter was not heard in part before any other Bench and in fact, it was heard for some time in the combination of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C.T.Ravikumar on preliminary aspects.
"How can it be said that it was heard? I came (on January 5, 2023 when the matter was listed before the bench of Justices Shah and Ravikumar)! No proceedings were there! I am amazed that it is being thought that there was a hearing! Notice was issued by a bench of Justice A. M. Khanwilkar and Justice C. T. Ravikumar. After Justice Khanwilkar retired, the matter was listed before Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice C. T. Ravikumar. Thereafter, before the bench of Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice C. T. Ravikumar. Then before Justice Shah and Justice Ravikumar. On that day (January 5), a letter was circulated. Your Lordships had something in mind, so I came at 2 PM. The matter was not heard because the matter was never called out. No proceedings made on that day. Please see the last order (of January 12). I was ready to argue before Justice Bopanna and Justice Ravikumar. I had no difficulty in arguing before Your Lordships," Singh said.
Here Justice Shah expressed displeasure at the manner in which the submission was being made. "Why are you raising your voice?" he asked Singh.
"This is not the practice of this court!" Singh responded.
"This is also not the practice- raising voice!" Justice Shah reminded him.
Also Read: Don't Tell Me Practice, I'll Decide What Practice Happens In My Court: CJI DY Chandrachud To Sr Adv Vikas Singh
Also Read: Don't Tell Me Practice, I'll Decide What Practice Happens In My Court: CJI DY Chandrachud To Sr Adv Vikas Singh
Singh then tried to draw the court's attention towards January 12 order. "Please see the order."
This prompted Justice Shah. "Don’t raise your voice! You may be the President...." he said.
Singh said "it is not a question of President."
Justice Shah told him "Don’t try to browbeat the court."
"Even otherwise if we had taken up the matter, we would have not (unclear)....as my learned brother says that I don’t want to be a party to any such type of unruly behaviour by counsel, that is why we said 'not before Justice C. T. Ravikumar'. Never try to raise the voice!" he added.
"Even otherwise if we had taken up the matter, we would have not (unclear)....as my learned brother says that I don’t want to be a party to any such type of unruly behaviour by counsel, that is why we said 'not before Justice C. T. Ravikumar'. Never try to raise the voice!" he added.
Not desisting, Singh responded,
"I am surprised I have to raise my voice....Your Lordships are commenting on my voice....My Lord Justice C. T. Ravikumar, while hearing another judicial officer's matter, while I was arguing another judicial officer's matter, My Lord Justice C. T. Ravikumar was part of that bench with Justice Bopanna, he said 'I will recuse'. He thought it is this matter. But I said it is not the same matter, and he heard it. Today, he should have said it at the opening. I need not have argued then."
"This is exactly why I said I don’t want to hear this matter," Justice Ravikumar then said.
"It is unfortunate that I have to say all this," Singh responded.
The bench then proceeded to dictate the following order- "As desired by my brother judge Justice C. T. Ravikumar, let this matter not be before the bench that Justice C. T. Ravi Kumar is party to. Registry to place the matter before appropriate court or bench after appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice."
"It is unfortunate that I have to say all this," Singh responded.
The bench then proceeded to dictate the following order- "As desired by my brother judge Justice C. T. Ravikumar, let this matter not be before the bench that Justice C. T. Ravi Kumar is party to. Registry to place the matter before appropriate court or bench after appropriate orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice."
On January 5, in the pre-lunch session when the matter was called out, the bench of Justices Shah and Ravikumar had criticised the conduct of the SLP petitioner- "Where will the citizens go if judicial officers act like this? There was recently this case where a police officer was assaulted by certain persons inside the chambers of a judge in Bihar. There was this other case also", Justice Shah had orally reprimanded, addressing the petitioner's side.
"All judges, including us, have to exercise judicial restraint", Justice Shah had said.
Taking a strict view of the actions of the petitioner, the bench had posted the matter for 2 PM on the same day to decide the further course. Post lunch, at 2 PM, Mr. Singh had appeared for the petitioner-judge, stating that he was not present earlier as a letter was circulated in the matter. Mr. Singh had told the bench that the petitioner is an upright officer, that he does not wish to withdraw his plea and that he may be heard, and that he is thereupon ready to face any consequences.
"We will not pass any orders without hearing Mr. Vikas Singh", the bench had then orally said, putting up the matter on a future date
Proceedings before the High Court
Before the Singe Bench of the High Court, counsel for the Sub-Inspector, IO in POCSO matter (while the investigation of POCSO cases is done by the officer in the rank of Dy. S.P.) had submitted that the judicial officer passed an adverse order against him directing an inquiry and imposing penalty without giving him any opportunity of hearing. It was further averred that the judicial officer made comments against several police officers in different matters and appeals were pending in this regard wherein interim orders were passed staying the directions. It was alleged that the judicial officer "seems to be having prejudice against the police officers in general".
On perusing the orders passed by the judicial officer from time to time, the High Court noted that observations were made against police personnel on account of statement of the prosecutrix who stated that she was being forced to give her statement mentioning of being teased and not raped. "Treating the allegations against police officers as truthful, the learned Judge has proceeded to make observations against the police personnel...in the opinion of this court, if any court of law while conducting trial or prior to it reaches to the conclusion that the I.O. has not conducted investigation properly...it can either ask the further investigation to be conducted or it can take open itself to record evidence and investigate the matter and it is at his own level or it can also pass directions under Section 210 of Cr.P.C. for further investigation by any other officer or agency. However, the learned Magistrate or Judge while finding that the investigation is being meshed up by the investigating officer by pressurising the witness, it can definitely direct for register case against the concerned police personnel. At the same time, it can also direct the superior officers to initiate departmental action against a particular police personnel who is found to be pressurizing or threatening the witness and thereby affecting the investigation however before such recourse is adopted, the concerned court must carefully examine all the aspects and must also give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned I.O. or the concerned police personnel."
The High Court said that making direct aspersions and remarks in the order-sheets against I.O. and police personnel merely at the asking of the prosecution or on account of any statement recorded of a witness who has not filed any case or complaint before the court, with regard to coercion and force being exercised on them, would be wholly unjustified.
The High Court had accordingly allowed the petition and expunged the remarks and observations made in the order sheet by the POCSO Judge.