The Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), Manan Kumar Mishra, has addressed concerns to Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud regarding a recent open letter penned by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, expressing apprehensions about the handling of sensitive cases in the Supreme Court.
Dave's letter, dated December 6, raised allegations that certain cases initially heard by specific benches were reassigned to others, seemingly breaching established Supreme Court Rules and procedural guidelines for case listings.
Although Mishra refrained from directly mentioning Dave in his letter to the CJI, he articulated that such actions were not isolated incidents but rather part of a recurring strategy aimed at influencing the judiciary, a tactic previously employed under various Chief Justices.
Describing the senior counsel's letter as contemptuous and an attempt to serve ulterior motives, Mishra urged for a stringent response from the judiciary to safeguard the impartiality and integrity of the legal system. He emphasized the need to disregard such attempts and ensure they don't impede the fair functioning of the judiciary.
Mishra contended that such correspondence undermines the morale of younger members of the legal fraternity who diligently abide by legal protocols. He alleged that these efforts often stem from influential litigants seeking undue advantages in their cases.
Further, Mishra argued that the claims made in Dave's letter lack authenticity and appear to seek attention and exert pressure on the judiciary rather than being genuine grievances.
Expressing solidarity with the CJI, Mishra urged for decisive action to curb these attempts and set a precedent against such interventions that aim to disrupt the legal process.
Dave's letter was preceded by remarks made in court regarding the reassignment of cases from one bench to another, raising concerns about the transfer of cases presided over by a senior judge to a junior judge's bench. Additionally, the removal of a case regarding delays in the Central government's notification of appointed judges from a specific bench also drew attention.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the presiding judge of the removed case, clarified that he had no involvement in its deletion, hinting at the possibility of the CJI being aware of the decision. This episode highlighted tensions within the court regarding case allocations.
The BCI Chairman's plea to the CJI aims to address attempts to influence the judiciary, emphasizing the need for a resolute response to maintain the judiciary's independence and uphold the sanctity of legal proceedings.
