New Delhi: Two days after senior lawyer Gopal Shankarnarayanan walked out of the courtroom of Justice Arun Mishra, the second senior most Supreme Court judge, when he was warned of contempt and conviction, the judge told a bunch of senior lawyers Thursday that though the lawyer is “half his age”, he would apologise a “100 times” with “folded hands”.
On 3 December, when a Constitution Bench headed by Mishra was hearing a case challenging the constitutionality of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, Mishra had urged Shankarnarayanan not to repeat arguments which had already been submitted by lawyers prior to him.
However, the senior lawyer, to maintain his flow, insisted on arguing on the eight-point proposition that was “meant to shape his line of argument”.
Seeing that his word was not being heeded to, Mishra said if Shankarnarayanan uttered another word, not only will he be sued for contempt but the judge will also ensure he is convicted. Immediately after this, the senior lawyer shut his case files and left the courtroom.
This followed an intense furore among the legal fraternity who issued a resolution asking the SC judge to be a little more patient with advocates.
‘Unnecessarily targeted’
On Thursday, a battery of senior advocates, led by Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Singhvi and others, mentioned this issue as soon as a bench of Justices Mishra and M.R. Shah assembled in court number 3 for the day’s proceedings.
Addressing the bench, Sibal said, “Many have been in bar for 40 years. Judges stay for three to four years and an environment of discourtesy is not helpful. This is a cumulative outburst… We are not antagonistic… We are requesting you to keep the exchange courteous.”
Mishra then said the bar (lawyers’ body) was his mother and that he has never drawn “any contempt against any lawyer” in his entire career.
“I hardly attend any function outside bar. I have not drawn any contempt against any lawyer in my life. Here, I felt that I was unnecessarily targeted by media or some persons. I deal with so many cases and I am under severe pressure. It can be out of pressure that I say something,” said Mishra.
He was referring to the demand for his recusal from the Land Acquisition Act case when he said he was “targeted by media”. The petitioners in the case had sought his recusal pointing out that he had already heard a case that was under challenge in the land acquisition matter being heard by him now. Mishra had heard the case seeking his recusal, and ruled against it citing “independence of the judiciary”.
In response to the lawyers’ request to him to be more patient and respectful to them, the judge said he will apologise a “hundred times” with “folded hands”.
“If anyone feels hurt, even animal or tree, I am ready for apology. In real sense, I apologise to any living creature if I had caused any harm. I know apology is not being sought and that Shankarnarayan is half of our age but even then apologise hundred times, with folded hands,” said the judge.
To this, the senior lawyers immediately said they were not seeking an apology, but Mishra remarked, “…arrogance was increasing in the bar. Our tolerance should not be mistaken for weakness”.
‘Shankarnarayanan was unnecessarily naming judges’
Mishra also elaborated on how Shankarnarayanan was not cut short during arguments.
“He was heard for long. He is projecting as if he was not heard. We told him not to argue those points. We had sent someone to call him. Five judges were calling him. He had to come. He was arguing beautifully but unnecessarily naming judges,” said Mishra.
Senior lawyers Shyam Divan and Prashant Bhushan had also earlier argued that Mishra should recuse from the case. Recollecting that, Mishra said how he was not partial with them.
“Yesterday, Shyam Divan and Prashant Bhushan argued so well. They argued on my recusal for 3 days… Did I say anything?”
Closing the session, Mishra also asked the senior lawyers to find about his reputation as a Rajasthan judge where he was known as “bar’s judge” indicating towards his good relations with the lawyers.
Also read: CJI Ranjan Gogoi — the ‘revolutionary’ judge who often found himself making headlines
Agree with Gopal Vaidya. Written submissions allow for better, more transparent arguments, save time and streamline judicial functioning. No wonder we have the mob celebrating the breakdown of institutional justice delivery. The common man is fast losing the little faith he had in our systems. I refer of course to the “encounter” killing of four undertrials today.
This is all about arrogance – whether it is about a lawyer who walked off or a judge who threatened contempt. But what is clear that our procedures need modernization. The age of long drawn out legal arguments is over, even more so in all higher courts. Higher courts should be all about legal issues and verbal arguments should be minimized to a summary. The detail must be in written briefs. Sadly, the decrepit legal system resists all attempts at reform. This irrelevant argument shows how disconnected our self appointed elites are with the needs of the country.
A judge is entitled to manage the judicial time. If a lawyer is long winded and continues to waste court’s time, the judge is justified in directing the lawyer to cut short his argument. What can a judge do if a lawyer pushes his luck and defies judge’s direction?