New Delhi: Diwali fireworks, it seems, started almost three months in advance in the Supreme Court – on August 14 to be precise.
In what was possibly his last full-court meeting as Chief Justice of India, outgoing CJI D.Y. Chandrachud witnessed strong opposition from some judges over the choice of candidates for designation as senior advocates, with the discussion soon turning acrimonious.
At least three sitting judges told this reporter that the issue virtually snowballed into a short slanging match – an extremely rare occurrence – between the CJI and some senior judges.
The Wire is aware of the identities of the dramatis personae apart from CJI Chandrachud involved in the entire affair but has decided not to name them.
According to sources, the moment the full-court started discussing names, at least two senior judges took serious exception to the inclusion of one of the candidates, with both pointing out that the advocate in question had in the past tried to mislead their respective courts by making false statements.
However, the CJI tried to persuade the dissenting judges with some explanation, which didn’t achieve the desired results.
Sources told The Wire that the issue soon snowballed into a slanging match, with the CJI even going to the extent of reminding one senior judge that “he was talking to the Chief Justice of India”.
“I have attended many full-court meetings and while there have been occasions when sharp differences of opinion come to the fore, this was the first time that I was witnessing a CJI trying to throw his weight around like this. He probably forgot in the heat of the moment that he is just first among equals and not our boss. Many of us thought he shouldn’t have done so. He wasn’t talking to schoolchildren,” one of the judges present in the meeting told this reporter.
In the end, despite the protestations, which many judges felt were valid, the CJI had his way and the candidate was cleared for designation as a senior advocate.
Another judge observed, “The CJI could have handled things in a better way. Trying to browbeat a senior judge by referring to your status as the CJI is simply not done. It made many of us wonder why he was so keen on this particular candidate even if the lawyer in question had been cleared by a committee. He could have simply postponed any decision about this candidate for a later date.”
At the full-court meeting held on August 14, out of the total 141 advocates-on-record and advocates, who had applied for being designated as senior advocates, 39 were cleared.
Since taking over as CJI in November 2022, CJI Chandrachud, who retires on November 10, has presided over several full-court meetings where over 100 lawyers, advocates-on-record and former high court judges, including high court chief justices, have been bestowed the designation of senior.
As per the “Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India” made public by the Supreme Court in 2023, the names of all applicants go to a committee comprising the CJI (chairperson), two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the attorney general for India and a member of the bar, who is nominated by the chairperson and other members.
While the guidelines talk about “conditions” that an advocate or advocate-on-record must fulfil in order to be considered for designation as senior, professional integrity isn’t one of them.
However, the guidelines do allow for the full-court to review its decision with regard to any senior advocate and recall the conferment of designation “if the Advocate is found guilty of conduct which according to the full court disentitles him to designation”.
In recent months, CJI Chandrachud has attracted a lot of negative publicity. As first reported by The Wire, he apparently delayed recommending the name of his successor – Justice Sanjiv Khanna – to make one last-ditch attempt to fill the lone vacancy on the Supreme Court bench. However, this move found little support.
Some of his decisions like redesigning the ‘Lady Justice’ statue and the decision to set up a museum to replace the erstwhile Judges’ Library have also run into opposition.
