'Don't Misunderstand Gentlemanly Demeanour; Be Careful About Statements Made In Court' : CJI DY Chandrachud Reprimands Lawyer

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressed great displeasure when a lawyer kept on arguing a matter, despite the bench making it clear that the petition cannot be entertained.

The bench comprising CJI, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra was dealing with a PIL seeking welfare of the rogue tusker 'Arikomban', which was translocated from Kerala forest in view of its threat to human settlements. At the very outset, the bench expressed its exasperation in dealing with multiple petitions concerning "Arikomban" and asked the counsel to approach the High Court.

This made the counsel to make an insinuating comment regarding the attitude of the Court under Article 32, which did not go down well with the bench.

"I won't allow anyone to take my court for a ride. Don't misunderstand the gentlemanly demeanour, there could be a tough interior. You have to be very careful about the kind of statements made in the court. Don't think that you will get away with it", CJI told the counsel.

The PIL was filed by an animal rights group, Walking Eye Foundation For Animal Advocacy. At the very outset, CJI DY Chandrachud sought to dismiss the plea, directing the petitioners to approach the High Court instead. CJI said–

"Nothing on Arikomban now. We have already dealt with matters on Arikomban. Go to the Kerala High Court now."

However, the counsel argued–

"No case is pending in any court regarding the welfare of Arikomban till today."

To this, the Chief Justice remarked–

"That is even better, you can file a petition under Article 226 now."

Unfazed by the bench's disinclination to continue hearing the petition, the counsel insisted the Apex Court to hear his plea. He said–

"I am only concerned with the welfare of the animal in this regard...let the State of Tamil Nadu show us where the elephant is, send some pictures or something. Let them show us the status of the animal, is it alive or not alive?"

CJI Chandrachud expressed his exasperation over the multiple petitions filed before the Supreme Court on Arikomban said–

"We are getting so many petitions on this – some asking place this elephant somewhere else, some asking for other reliefs. The High Court is exactly for this. They are aware of the ground reality. The Kerala High Court passed orders, we affirmed those orders".

The bench then proceeded to pass an order allowing the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court.

Despite the same, the counsel continued his arguments and insisted that the Supreme Court hear the matter. He said that 

"But sometimes the elephant is in Kerala and sometimes in Tamil Nadu, so it is not clear whether to approach the Kerala or Madras High Court".

In response CJI Chandrachud firmly stated that elephants naturally move and questioned the necessity of knowing the exact location of wildlife. He said–

"So what? Do you think the elephant will remain in one place? It is an elephant! Of course it will move around. Why should you know where the wildlife is?...It's not in our advisory jurisdiction to tell you which High Court to go to..."

The counsel persisted in his arguments and added–

"Lakhs of people are waiting for news on the elephant my lords. This shows your lordships' attitude regarding 32 petition. I know it very well."

At this juncture, CJI Chandrachud warned the counsel against misusing the legal process and emphasized the need to respect the court and avoid taking it for granted. Modifying the initial order, the bench imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner. However, when the final order was uploaded, no such cost was imposed.

Just yesterday, the CJI's bench had refused to entertain a PIL seeking the relocation of the elephant 'Arikomban’ back to its natural habitat in Chinnakkanal in Kerala. The court had held that the petitioner had alternate remedies at their disposal and accordingly dismissed the PIL. In April too, the Supreme Court had refused to interfere with the Kerala High Court direction for translocation of 'Arikomban'.

Case Title: Walking Eye Foundation For Animal Advocacy And Anr. v. The State Of Kerala And Ors W.P.(C) No. 676/2023 PIL-W