A dramatic exchange unfolded in the Gujarat High Court as Advocate Brijesh J. Trivedi, President of the High Court Advocates’ Association, criticized Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal for allegedly interrupting and not allowing lawyers to complete arguments. Referring to a quote about “overspeaking judges,” Trivedi accused the Chief Justice of inappropriate courtroom conduct, sparking a tense standoff during a PIL hearing.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Ahmedabad: This morning, senior lawyers of the Gujarat High Court gathered before a Bench led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal to discuss and clarify the Bar’s stance on a heated argument that had occurred on Friday.
The exchange took place between Chief Justice Agarwal and Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association President, Brijesh J Trivedi.
Advocate General (AG) Kamal Trivedi addressed the matter, emphasizing the need for both lawyers and judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
He stated,
“Dignity and decorum of this august institution should be maintained at any cost. Secondly, administration of justice should be protected from being maligned. Thirdly, there should be a mutual cohesive atmosphere, mutual respect, and the coordination between the Bar and the Bench. I sincerely feel that the lawyers should not run down the honourable court, nor should lawyers be run down unnecessarily. And the incident which had happened on Friday, in my view, that should not have happened. Perhaps, we should try to take care to see that recurrence of such an incident doesn’t take place.”
The AG highlighted that in the 60-year history of the Gujarat High Court, such an incident was unprecedented. He remarked,
“We have not witnessed this kind of an atmosphere, so that should be avoided. That’s what we have been feeling, and we thought that we must convey as to the feeling of all the people who have got here voluntarily.”
In response, Chief Justice Agarwal expressed gratitude to the senior lawyers for their clarification and emphasized that both judges and lawyers must strive to safeguard the judicial institution.
She acknowledged the critical role of lawyers, saying,
“I am so grateful for all of you, that you have recognised (that) all efforts should be that the institution should not be put down.”
Adding to this, Senior Advocate Deven Parikh observed,
“If we (lawyers) malign the institutions, we are maligning ourselves.”
The Chief Justice affirmed this sentiment with a simple,
“Correct.”
Parikh also pointed out that while the lines of communication with the Chief Justice remain open, grievances should be addressed outside of court hours.
He stated,
“This (such issues) is not a part of merits of the matter and this can never be a part of discussion between 11-5 (court hours). If there are anything else, this has to be a part of communications after court hours.”
The Chief Justice agreed and elaborated on the shared responsibility to honor the judiciary, saying,
“(After) being at the Bar for 20 years and as a judge for 12 years – whatever this institution has given us, I think, we will not be able to pay it back throughout our life. As senior members of the bar, and as the Chief Justice, our effort is only to give back to the institutions so that the future generations may flourish in this institution. Institution should stand. Institution will never fail, only we fail. Institution never fails.”
Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati supported this view, emphasizing that lawyers must not demean the judiciary and that concerns can be openly presented to the Chief Justice.
In response, the Chief Justice said,
“I have expressed this always and tried to do that best we can. Thank you so much.”
The dispute under discussion had occurred on January 17, during a hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning illegal constructions.
Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association President Brijesh J Trivedi accused the Chief Justice of not allowing lawyers to complete their arguments and criticized her demeanor during his submissions.
He alleged,
“Your ladyship is looking somewhere at the sky, this has never happened in this Hon’ble Court in 65 years. My request is to keep it after two weeks.”
He also requested the matter to be assigned to another Bench.
The Chief Justice, however, urged the lawyer not to create a scene, but Trivedi countered, claiming it was not he who was creating the disruption.
This confrontation highlighted the tensions that led to today’s clarifications, with both sides ultimately reaffirming the importance of mutual respect and the dignity of the judiciary.
BACKGROUND
The Gujarat High Court became the center of a tense exchange of words between Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Advocate Brijesh J. Trivedi, who also serves as the President of the High Court Advocates’ Association.
Advocate Trivedi openly criticized the behavior of the Chief Justice during court proceedings, alleging that she frequently interrupts and does not allow lawyers, including Senior Advocates, to finish their arguments.
Referring to a past remark, Trivedi alluded to a quote by Lord Francis Bacon about “overspeaking judges.” He remarked,
“It is other way round happening time and again, every senior advocate, advocate of the Court have been very kind enough to tolerate this. I had in the 2023 year used a nice quotation of Lord Francis Bacon. I don’t want to repeat it. I hope your ladyship remembers that…. I am not a judge, it is about an overspeaking judge.”
The incident occurred during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) about illegal constructions, presided over by a Bench comprising Chief Justice Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi. Advocate Trivedi, who represented the petitioner, expressed his concerns about the manner in which the Chief Justice was conducting the proceedings.
At one point, Justice Agarwal interjected to address the counsel, saying,
“Mr. Counsel, please let me complete. I was making some statement. I was asking you something, you did not allow to complete my question.”
She emphasized the importance of letting the court finish its questions before a response.
Responding to the Chief Justice, Trivedi said,
“When one can get the question. No issues, your ladyship may put.”
However, when Justice Agarwal insisted on the need for the counsel to let the court speak, Trivedi replied,
“I think it is the same way I can say from here but no issues. I don’t want to join issues.”
ALSO READ: Gujarat High Court: Rejecting ‘Chalta Hai’ Approach in Affidavit Filings
Trivedi urged the court to allow him to complete his sentence, stating,
“I think this is not the manner in which the Court is supposed to decide a pending matter … permit me to complete my sentence. I understood the question. It was my mistake to have understood the question beforehand and I am sorry for that.”
As the arguments continued, Justice Agarwal leaned back in her chair, looking upwards, prompting Trivedi to observe this behavior and suggest that the case be reassigned to another Bench.
He remarked,
“This is the manner in which your ladyship wants to listen without even permitting the advocates to speak, that is enough, your ladyship may leave the matter, place it before another appropriate bench. This is not the manner in which your ladyship should behave, looking somewhere else. My request is to release the matter.”
Advocate Trivedi then requested an adjournment of two weeks, saying,
“Your ladyship is looking somewhere at the sky, this has never happened in this Hon’ble Court in 65 years. My request is to keep it after two weeks.”
Despite efforts by another lawyer to calm him, Trivedi persisted in his request for a two-week adjournment, which was opposed by the opposing counsel. Justice Agarwal eventually addressed the situation, stating,
“The Bench is not going to permit creating a scene in the courtroom.”
To this, Trivedi replied,
“I am not creating a scene, it is the other way round, with utmost respect.”
At one point, Chief Justice Agarwal, while looking at Trivedi, warned,
“Please don’t raise finger towards the Court.”
Trivedi denied any such action, responding,
“I am not raising, where is the question of raising finger to Court.”
The Chief Justice stressed that such behavior was inappropriate for a courtroom.
As the situation escalated, Trivedi remarked,
“Video will remain, this is not expected of Hon’ble court… after viewing the video as to how your ladyship has been behaving in the courtroom.”
Following this, he left the courtroom but briefly returned, accusing the Chief Justice of being an “overspeaking judge,” a trait he claimed all lawyers had been “tolerating.”
After making this statement, Advocate Trivedi exited the courtroom once again, leaving behind an atmosphere of tension and unresolved contention.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
