Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
keyboard_arrow_down
Login
exit_to_app
exit_to_app
Not correct to say only certain matters listed before court: SC
cancel
camera_alt

Image Courtesy : https://scroll.in


New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that it was not correct to say that only certain matters were listed before the court, and the rest were not, insisting that the apex court's registry is working very hard.

The remarks were made by a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ajay Rastogi during the hearing of a plea filed by Yatin Oza, challenging the Gujarat High Court decision withdrawing his senior advocate designation following his remarks against the High Court registry.

Justice Kaul said that people can have grievances, but to say "that only certain category of matters are being listed, and not the rest, is not correct".

Telling counsel representing Oza that it is a very difficult time for everybody and not just for the legal community, Justice Kaul insisted that the apex court registry was working very hard, and the bar should convey its grievances in a better language.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Oza, contended before the bench that he would not repeat something like this again, and his client tends to get "emotionally carried away". However, at this, the bench noted that there are better ways to show emotion.

The top court was informed by another counsel appearing for Oza that he is willing to tender an unconditional apology. The bench replied that the bar can always point out issues with the bench, but the language needs to be looked at.

Oza expressed regret on using the contentious words which led to these developments and assured the top court that he would tender an unconditional apology before the High Court. The apex court posted the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

On July 6, the apex court had dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer seeking a direction to its Secretary General and registrars to stop giving preference to cases filed by influential lawyers, law firms, and also asked not to discriminate against ordinary lawyers. Junking this petition, the top court imposed a token penalty of Rs 100 on the lawyer.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer imposed a cost of Rs 100 on advocate Reepak Kansal, who had alleged the apex court authorities favoured influential lawyers and discriminated against ordinary lawyers in connection with listing of matters.

Show Full Article
TAGS:court SC supreme court Singhvi 
Next Story