NEW DELHI: In a firm rebuke, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud expressed disapproval over a lawyerโs use of informal language during court proceedings on Monday. The lawyer, while addressing the bench, casually said โyeahโ multiple times, prompting the CJI to respond sharply, stating that such language was inappropriate in a courtroom setting.
The incident occurred during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi. The lawyer had named Justice Gogoi as a respondent in a petition related to a previous dismissal of a plea concerning labour laws.
CJI Chandrachud questioned the appropriateness of filing a PIL against a judge, highlighting the need for respect and dignity in such matters. The lawyer was explaining a 2018 petition where he had listed former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi as a respondent.
ALSO READ: SC cautions against politics, religion in Tirupati laddu controversy โ THE NEW INDIAN
The CJI questioned the legality of the petition, asking, โBut is it an Article 32 plea? How can you file a PIL with a judge as a respondent?โ The lawyer, defending his stance, replied, โYeah, yeah, the then CJI Ranjan Gogoiโฆ I was asked to file a curativeโฆโ before being interrupted by the Chief Justice, who emphasized the seriousness of courtroom decorum. โThis is not a coffee shop! I am very allergic to this โyeah, yeah,โโ CJI Chandrachud remarked, cutting off the lawyer mid-sentence.
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution allows citizens to seek constitutional remedies for the violation of their fundamental rights. However, CJI Chandrachud reminded the lawyer that challenging a former judgeโs decision in this manner was not permissible.
โJustice Gogoi was a former judge of this court. You cannot file a plea like this against a judge and seek an in-house inquiry because you did not succeed before the bench,โ CJI Chandrachud stated.
ALSO READ: Delhi Police Constable killed by Wagon R occupants in Nangloi โ THE NEW INDIAN
Addressing the substance of the plea, CJI Chandrachud explained that the lawyer could not impugn a judge after an unfavourable decision, particularly when seeking an in-house inquiry.
He clarified that Justice Gogoi, now a Rajya Sabha MP, should not have been named in the petition. Before concluding, the CJI advised the lawyer to modify his petition and remove Justice Gogoiโs name.
The courtโs registry has been directed to review the petition, and further proceedings will take place once the necessary amendments are made.
