Hearing concludes
A bench headed by CJI Surya Kant will hear the matter. Andhra Pradesh High Court Judge Custody Order Highlights: The Supreme Court is hearing the suo motu matter arising out of an incident where Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court, directed a young lawyer to be taken into judicial custody for 24 hours. The order was subsequently recalled.
Suo motu: The top court had taken cognisance of the matter after the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of India had condemned the incident. The letter by BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra sought action against the judge, including withdrawal of judicial work from the judge pending review and his transfer to some other high court. CJI Surya Kant is learnt to have sought a report from the Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief Justice.
“Appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far-off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” the BCI letter written by Mishra stated.
Viral Video: A video of the hearing doing the rounds on social media showed the young advocate apologising and ‘begging for grace’ with folded hands before the Andhra Pradesh High Court judge. The judge said that the counsel behaved “indolently” and directed the police to take him into custody.
CJI: We expect media will play a proactive role with a heightened sense of responsibility in collaboration with bar and bench.
CJI: Media has a vital role to play. The dissemination of decontextualised video clips without presenting full background has the potential to cause unwarranted prejudice
CJI: It seriously needs emphasis that the judiciary must actively collaborate with initiatives and contribute towards the qualitative enhancement of standards within the legal profession.
CJI: Responsibility does not rest with bar alone, the bench is equally...with the obligation of nurturing legal profession
CJI: The incident in question does not warrant any further action. At the same time, we consider it appropriate to observe that members of the judiciary at all levels must exhibit patience, compassion and a sense of encouragement especially towards young members. Young law graduates emerging from a wide variety of institutions should be encouraged to join law.
CJI: The CJ has constituted a committee of five judges to maintain cordial relations with bar and bench
CJI begins to dictate order
Senior advocate Vikas Singh: There should be some internal..we encourage younger bar...Internal mechanism, also sensitising judiciary at every level..
CJI: Got a report from CJ. That observation was not made part of the judicial order
Hearing yet to start
The Supreme Court Bar Association had, in a resolution passed on May 6, urged the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant, to look into the incident.
Referring to the video, BCI stated in its letter to the CJI that the incident raises grave questions of judicial temperament, proportionality, fairness, and the dignity of the bar. “With utmost respect to the majesty of the Court, such a course, if correctly reflected in the video and the order, raises grave questions of judicial temperament, proportionality, fairness, and the dignity of the Bar,” the BCI letter dated May 6 read.
It was stated that sending a young lawyer to judicial custody for 24 hours, prima facie, was grossly inappropriate and deeply damaging to the confidence of the bar in the institution. “It is most humbly submitted that incidents of this nature have a chilling effect upon young members of the Bar. They create fear in the minds. The dignity of the Court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open Court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse,” the letter read.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will shortly hear the plea over the order passed by an Andhra Pradesh High Court judge who directed 24-hour custody of a young lawyer during a hearing.
