Lawyers shout at each other in Supreme Court, CJI asks them to “shut up”

Supreme Court senior advocate, Indira Jaising, during the hearing of her PIL alleged that the process of appointing a senior advocate was opaque and discriminatory.

By: PTI | New Delhi | Published:October 21, 2016 7:47 pm
Supreme Court, lawyer at the Supreme Court, Supreme Court news, Lawyer scufle at the supreme Court,Chief Justice of India,Supreme court, latest supreme Court news, latest news, India news, Latest news The squabble broke out as the Supreme Court was hearing a PIL filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising seeking transparency and overhauling the “opaque system” of designating lawyers as senior advocates. (File)

Unsavoury scenes were witnessed in the Supreme Court today when some lawyers got agitated and started shouting at each other to get the attention of the Chief Justice’s bench, leading CJI T S Thakur to lose his cool and asking them to “shut up” or get thrown out.

Watch What Else is Making News

“Shut up. Why are you shouting? Is this a court or a fish market? Shut up I say. I will get you thrown out. There has to be some dignity of the court. This is the problem. People who do not conduct themselves in the courtroom want to become senior lawyers,” the Chief Justice of India told the lawyers who were indulging in heated exchanges inside the court room.

The CJI warned some of them that they could be thrown out of the courtroom if they did not behave and told an advocate who had raised his voice not to do it again.

“You keep quiet. There is a dignity of this court. Is this a court or a market place? You are not a party in this matter. Just look at (eminent lawyer) Soli Sorabjee. Just look at him and try to learn something. Do you think raising your voice and browbeating will help you,” Justice Thakur said.

The CJI’s bench, which also comprised Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, was hearing a PIL filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising seeking transparency and overhauling the “opaque system” of designating lawyers as senior advocates.

At the outset, Jaising said that “monopoly” at the Bar of a handful of seniors was affecting access to justice and sought a system that provided “equal opportunity” to all as she compared it with the concept of monopolistic and restrictive trade practices.

She alleged that the present system was discriminatory and “if we want this to continue with the present system, it has to be democratised.”

However, her suggestions that a lawyer with 20-30 years of experience or those who filed PILs and had published articles in prominent periodicals should be automatically be designated as seniors, did not appeal to the bench.

The bench was also not impressed with her suggestion that there should be interviews for nominating a counsel as senior on the ground that the process did not involve selection as the judges always interacted with them during hearing.

While showing its disagreement, the court remarked, “just because a lawyer has spent a number of years in the profession cannot be a ground for his designation. You will also say that lawyers with education in Harvard, Oxford be considered for designation as senior counsel.”