'Country Has Complete Faith In Justice Chandrachud' : BCI Condemns Letter Against SC Judge As Malicious & Baseless

The Bar Council of India has condemned the attempts made by "some people with vested interests" to tarnish the image of Supreme Court judge Justice DY Chandrachud, who is next in line to be the Chief Justice of India.

Slamming a letter circulated by one Mr Rashid Khan Pathan raising allegations against Justice Chandrachud, the BCI said "it is nothing but a scurrilous and malicious attempt to interfere with the functioning of Judiciary and the administration of Justice." The timing of the letter was questioned, as it was released soon after the Union Law Minister requested the incumbent CJI UU Lalit to name his successor. The BCI noted that complaint purportedly lodged by RK Pathan, who claims to be the President of "Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association", was made viral online, when Justice Chandrachud is likely to be elevated as the CJI.

"Such growing tendency is really a matter of serious concern for the country and it has to be checked anyhow." the Council added.

The Bar Council pointed out that Mr.Pathan and two other persons who have filed the complaint against Justice Chandrachud, had been found guilty by the Supreme Court in a Suo Motu Contempt Petition for filing false, and baseless complaints against Supreme Court judges and were sentenced to three months simple imprisonment[In April 2020, the Supreme Court had sentenced RK Pathan and two others for contempt of court over their letters against Justices RF Nariman and Vineet Saran].

Also, the Bombay High Court has issued a contempt notice against Pathan for making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting judge of the High Court.

The first allegation by the complainant was that Justice Chandrachud had passed certain orders in a case which in some manner is connected with proceedings before the High Court of Bombay in which his son had appeared. The Council stated that as per its information, the parties before the Supreme Court were different from the parties before the High Court and the grievance before the Supreme Court was not on the merits but regarding the delay by the High Court in hearing the petition. Taking note of this, the Supreme Court requested the judge of the High Court to either consider the petition or consider the application for vacating the stay and no order on merits was passed. The Council stated that both these orders do not show that Justice Chandrachud knew that his son had appeared in the matter before the High Court. Also, the Supreme Court regularly passes such orders asking the High Court to expedite hearing.

The second allegation was that Justice Chandrachud disregarded settled law while dismissing a plea challenging restrictions placed upon people who had not availed Covid Vaccine.  Regarding this allegation, the Council said "such orders are passed by the Courts in discharge of judicial duties as a judge on merits of the case and such a complaint based on such baseless and frivolous allegations is clearly scandalous."

"This long letter is nothing, but a device to gain cheap popularity. This man has also defamed the litigants-mass of our country. This is also very sad. Such persons deserve strong penal and disciplinary action", the Council stated.

It added that disciplinary action will be taken against RK Pathan after proper investigation.

The Bar Council of India expressed its faith in Justice Chandrachud and stated that, "The country and the Indian Bar has complete faith in Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud. Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is an asset for the world's Judiciary and is known for his knowledge, honestly and integrity."

The Council also said that the people of the country are prudent enough to understand the truth and reason behind such post at this moment.

The Press Release also stated that, "our Judges are not supposed to come forward to defend themselves against such scandalous and baseless attacks, but, the Bar is here to protect the Judiciary in order to enable it to function independently, without any fear or favour, so that our Supreme Court and High Courts could protect our Constitution and the democracy."

The Council also requested to the dignitaries to whom the post was addressed to ignore it and discourage "such anti-institutional people".