hear the news

Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud Singh said on Friday that we do not want the Supreme Court to become date on date. He said this in relation to the tendency of lawyers to prolong the cases. Justice Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, during the hearing of a case, expressed displeasure when the lawyer sought more time to argue the matter and said that he has sent a letter for adjournment. To this the bench said, we will not adjourn the matter. At most we can pass the matter to be taken up at the end of the board but you have to debate the matter. We do not want the Supreme Court to become a ‘Tarikh Pe Tithi’ court. We want to change this perception.

Responding to a lawyer appearing in a civil appeal on behalf of a Hindu priest, Justice Chandrachud recalled a dialogue from the film ‘Damini’ and said that this is the Supreme Court of the country and we want this court to get some respect. The bench said that while the judges, while preparing for the next day’s hearing, stay up till midnight and peruse the files of the case, on the other hand, the lawyers come and seek an adjournment. The court did not pass the matter and later when the counsel appearing for the arguments appeared in the matter, the bench refused to interfere in the appeal and asked Pujari to approach the High Court.

In another case, a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud refused to quash the remarks made by a high court against a lawyer. He said the High Court has to maintain discipline in the courtroom and it would not be appropriate for the apex court to remove the comments of wrong conduct of anyone. The bench was aggrieved on the filing of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and said that the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted. Article 32 deals with the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

Expansion

Supreme Court Chief Justice DY Chandrachud Singh said on Friday that we do not want the Supreme Court to become date on date. He said this in relation to the tendency of lawyers to prolong the cases. Justice Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, during the hearing of a case, expressed displeasure when the lawyer sought more time to argue the matter and said that he has sent a letter for adjournment. To this the bench said, we will not adjourn the matter. At most we can pass the matter to be taken up at the end of the board but you have to debate the matter. We do not want the Supreme Court to become a ‘Tarikh Pe Tithi’ court. We want to change this perception.

Responding to a lawyer appearing in a civil appeal on behalf of a Hindu priest, Justice Chandrachud recalled a dialogue from the film ‘Damini’ and said that this is the Supreme Court of the country and we want this court to get some respect. The bench said that while the judges, while preparing for the next day’s hearing, stay up till midnight and peruse the files of the case, lawyers on the other hand come and seek an adjournment. The court passed the matter and later when the counsel appearing for the arguments appeared in the matter, the bench refused to interfere in the appeal and asked Pujari to approach the High Court.

In another case, a bench headed by Justice Chandrachud refused to quash the remarks made by a high court against a lawyer. He said the High Court has to maintain discipline in the courtroom and it would not be appropriate for the apex court to remove the comments of wrong conduct of anyone. The bench was aggrieved on the filing of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and said that the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted. Article 32 deals with the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

,

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.