The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea seeking to restrain Justice DY Chandrachud from taking oath as the next Chief Justice of India terming the petition as misconceived. A writ was filed by Mursalin Asijith Saikh.
A bench comprising CJI UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M Trivedi said that the petition was completely misconceived. We see no reason to entertain this petition. The entire plea is completely misconceived. Hence dismissed,” the court ordered.
The matter was listed at 12.45 p.m. on Wednesday after it was mentioned for urgent listing before CJI UULalit.
The plea filed by an advocate, Mursalin Asijit Shaikh, alleged that Justice Chandrachud had acted with wilful disregard and deliberately defiance of binding precedents of larger benches of the Supreme Court and denied justice to deserving litigants.
The petition was filed on the basis of a representation filed by Rashid Khan Pathan before the President of India against Justice Chandrachud. The complaint went viral in social media and WhatsApp groups, which led the Bar Council of India and several other bar associations to issue public statements strongly condemning the allegations and discarding them as baseless.
When the matter was taken up, the petitioner’s lawyer took objection to CJI Lalit hearing the case, as he had recommended Justice Chandrachud as the successor.
“We’re only on the point whether you’ve made out the case or not,” CJI Lalit said.
The petitioner’s advocate further contended that Justice Chandrachud’s bench heard a special leave petition arising out of an order in the Bombay High Court in which his son had appeared as a counsel.
The Bench asked the petitioner’s advocate to show the proof that the said order was annexed to the SLP. “Show us that the order was part of the paper book?
The petitioner requested that the matter be posted tomorrow. “You said that you were prepared, and that is why we decided to hear,” and the CJI did not appreciate the counsel’s conduct.
“Whatever you wish to argue, you argue now,” CJI told the petitioner when he repeated the request to adjourn the hearing.
When the petitioner could not make any further submission, the bench dismissed the petition.
