The SCBA and the CJI have been at odds over the issue for the past several days after the CJI reprimanded SCBA president Vikas Singh on March 2 for pressing on the case’s urgent listing.
In Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) v. Ministry of Urban Development and ors, where SCBA requested that property given to the Supreme Court be converted into a lawyer-chamber building, the Supreme Court on Friday postponed its decision.
On Friday, the Supreme Court put off making a decision in response to a petition from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) that asked for 1.33 acres of property to be given to the highest court in order to build lawyer chambers.
A three-judge special bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices SK Kaul and PS Narasimha, heard the arguments from attorneys and representatives of all parties, but it questioned how it could be done on the judicial side and stated that it was already handling all of these issues on the administrative side.
The CJI raised his concerns about hearing this case on the judicial side during Friday’s sessions, noting that it wouldn’t be the correct thing to do.
We all include lawyers in this. That belongs to our organisation. If we exercise our legal authority, it sends a signal: observe what the Supreme Court is doing. You are utilising judicial authority for your growth. Tomorrow it will be something else, now it is land. The implication that we are using our judicial authority to overthrow the government shouldn’t be made, is the apt summary of the remarks by the CJI.
The SCBA and the CJI have been at odds over the matter for the last several weeks after the CJI reprimanded SCBA president Vikas Singh on March 2 for pressing on the case’s urgent listing.
On March 2, Singh brought up the issue repeatedly despite the CJI’s declaration that it would only be listed in regular process. In order to get the case heard, Singh had then said he would even go to the CJI’s home.
Singh was told to leave the courtroom immediately in response, and the CJI assured him that he would not be bullied or given special treatment.
Moreover, the CJI had reminded Singh that he was requesting that attorneys get property granted to the Supreme Court under Article 32.
It’s interesting to note that Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Neeraj Kishan Kaul apologised for Singh’s behaviour following the tense exchange in CJI Chandrachud’s court earlier.
Eventually, Singh received support from the SCBA executive committee (EC). Also, it had recommended passing two resolutions, one of which called for taking legal action against attorneys who publicly disagree with the SCBA’s position on the matter.
The second demanded that Kaul and Sibal be given show-cause notices for their apology to the CJI on Singh’s behaviour.
The SCBA was scheduled to vote on the two motions on March 16 during a general body meeting.
In her representation of the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA), senior attorney Meenakshi Arora emphasised the need for chambers for AoRs, who are seen as an essential component of the Supreme Court, and claimed that at least 800 AORs had already qualified for such chambers.
At the EC meeting, more than 470 attorneys, including Senior Advocates and the former attorney general KK Venugopal (in separate letters), objected to the two resolutions in a letter to the SCBA.
After the EC’s cognizance of the situation and the listing of the current plea, the meeting was adjourned.
The fate of the case is yet to see further changes down the line. It could be a deciding case concerning the relationship shared by the bar and bench.
