New Delhi: In the last six-odd months, just-retired Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has seen intra-court differences, an upset legal community, and questions and criticism over his public utterances. These culminated in a bowing out that took place with a whimper instead of the bang with which he came in.
Now, former Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Adish C. Aggarwala has shot off a stinging letter to the former CJI – his second this month. In his November 14 letter, Aggarwala asserted that his “contribution to our judicial system was more about appeasement and publicity at the costs of others” and also accusing him of getting involved in bar politics.
Among other things, Aggarwala accuses the former CJI of seeking his help to rein in senior advocate Dushyant Dave, getting involved in SCBA politics, getting designation of lawyers as seniors stalled so as to ensure the process happened after the retirement of two of the CJI’s strong-minded colleagues – Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Ravindra Bhat, and not designating two retired judges as seniors due to personal reasons.
“The nation heard giga bytes of oral observations and passing mentions to discredit the government thereby getting kudos from media and social activists… There was little to match your activism by way of judicial decisions. History will judge Your Lordship as this: “Sound and fury, signifying nothing (much),” the 11-page letter reads.
Aggarwala says he initially thought very highly of the former CJI.
“I felt that you were a champion of individual rights and felt committed to the task of Court modernisation. You had the potential to achieve any desired goal if you had requisite support. Initially, you displayed a keenness to understand the problems and find solutions,” he writes.
Aggarwala alleges that Chandrachud did not take kindly to criticism by Aggarwala’s predecessor as SCBA chief, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, and allegedly requested him to criticise Dave.
“When former President of the SCBA, Mr. Dushyant Dave, in an open letter dated 06.12.2023 to you, expressed his anguish over the shifting of cases, some of which were politically sensitive, from one bench to another, I was called by you and asked for my opinion as to whether you have the right to be the master of the roster or not. When I told you that it is well settled law that Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India is the master of the roster and he has the right to shift the cases from one Bench to another, then you requested me to criticise Mr. Dave on behalf of the SCBA,” he writes.
He then goes on to claim that he expressed his inability to criticise Dave by passing a resolution of the SCBA “as many members of the Executive Committee were his supporters and he had remained the President of the SCBA for three terms”.
“Although, I had defeated him with a huge margin of 191 votes on 17.05.2023 in the SCBA elections, you still pushed me to find a solution. Then, I agreed to write a letter to you on my individual letterhead and not on the letterhead of the SCBA clarifying the legal position. I drafted the letter and then I was asked by you to add the sentence: “After your Lordship took over as Chief Justice of India, all administrative issues have been streamlined right from mentioning of matters, listing of cases and other issues concerning the Registry”. I added the said sentence in my open letter dated 07.12.2023 addressed to you,” Aggarwala claims.
Aggarwala also asserts that he suggested to the then CJI that he (Aggarwala) could request Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman of Bar Council of India, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Dave. “You told me that it can escalate the situation,” he says.
“You told me that my letter dated 07.12.2023 has brought the desired results and now Mr. Dave will not create any nuisance for you during your remaining tenure as Chief Justice of India. This issue reflects that you can take any support to maintain your position but you did not want to escalate the situation by taking the extreme step,” he writes.
Mishra is currently a BJP Rajya Sabha MP.
On the issue of designation of senior advocates, Aggarwala says, “During my tenure as the President of SCBA, the Supreme Court of India was in a process of designating Senior Advocates. There was an apprehension that Supreme Court of India would not designate more than 15 lawyers as Senior Advocates as besides you, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna had very strong views on the issue of designating. I, however, requested you that you should be liberal in designating Senior Lawyers and atleast 100 lawyers should be designated Senior.”
He then expands: “You told me that you wanted 20 of your own acquaintances to be designated as Senior Advocates but with above-mentioned Judges being part of the decision making process, you may not be in a position to designate more than 15 lawyers and that you would not get even a single designation for your choices. You requested me to get the process of designation delayed and suggested me that I should write a letter to you in this regard and I did write a letter dated 14.08.2023, “with a request for clarification in the new guidelines for Senior Advocates designation that requirement for recommendation of Hon’ble Judge is not required in old applications and shall be applicable only for new applications.”
“Probably using this letter as a basis, you managed to get the time extended,” Aggarwala claims, adding, “I was asked to write another letter to you seeking extension of time till 08.11.2023 as soft copies of the publications needed to be collected from different parts of the country. I wrote the said letter on 09.10.2023 and sought extension of time. You were aware that during this time Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat would retire on 20.10.2023 and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on 25.12.2023. Thereafter, on 19.01.2024, you designated 56 lawyers as Senior Advocates.”
Aggarwala also accuses the ex-CJI of ensuring that “names of some capable and well deserving lawyers were withheld”.
He also claims that CJI Chandrachud then left for the USA to meet some “influential person” and also because he was not interested to be a part of the farewell and ceremonial bench for Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, “because you were annoyed with him”.
Aggarwala also accuses the previous CJI of being “fond of inaugurations” who continued with such events even after the official announcement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna as the next CJI.
He also claims that Justice Chandrachud told him to “delete the appreciation of Prime Minister” and praise only him in his speech at a function in the Supreme Court, which he refused.
About another event – the 2023 Christmas celebrations, Aggarwala claims that the then CJI specifically asked him to invite the print and the electronic media to cover this festival. “You would sing Christmas carols that will become viral throughout the world as this will be the first time that a Chief Justice of a Supreme Court of India will be singing,” his letter claims.
He also claims that Justice Chandrachud refused to attend a SCBA’s international seminar on International Terrorism and Human Rights in January-February, 2024, only because Aggarwala had invited Union home minister Amit Shah to inaugurate the same.
“When I informed you that I have invited the Union Home Minister for the inauguration, you told me that you would not attend the Seminar as Union Home Minister was invited and not you, to inaugurate the Seminar,” he writes.
Aggarwala claims that after he wrote to the then CJI questioning the court’s view in the electoral bonds case, the CJI got “very annoyed”.
“You were very annoyed with my letter and called the Executive Committee members and office bearers of SCBA to pass a resolution condemning me even though I had not sought the Suo Motu Review on the letterhead of SCBA. When Chief Justice of India is requesting the Executive Committee members to condemn their President then, they feel duty bound to oblige him and they issued a clarification distancing themselves from my views… I later came to know that you suggested to Mr. Kapil Sibal to contest for the Presidentship of SCBA as he can spend any amount and also he has been Union Minister for Law and Justice and President of SCBA. Not only this, you conveyed to lawyers ideologically inclined towards BJP that they should not support Dr. Adish Aggarwala and therefore anti-BJP cadre supported Mr. Kapil Sibal and BJP cadre supported Mr. Pradeep Rai and therefore Mr Kapil Sibal won and as a consequence of this, I was able to achieve only third position,” he alleges.