The Gujarat High Court resolved a conflict between Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and GHCAA President Brijesh J Trivedi that arose during a January 17 courtroom incident. After mutual expressions of regret, they emphasized the need for respect within judicial proceedings, allowing the court to move forward and focus on its responsibilities while addressing the importance of maintaining harmony.
Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) President Brijesh J Trivedi have put an end to a recent controversy that had created tension between the Bar and the Bench.
The dispute stemmed from a heated courtroom exchange on January 17, where Trivedi accused the Chief Justice of being an “overspeaking judge” and claimed that lawyers had been “tolerating” her conduct. In response, Chief Justice Agarwal criticized Trivedi for trying to intimidate the court and passed strong remarks against him in an order on the same day.
On Monday, Chief Justice Agarwal addressed the matter directly, emphasizing that such issues should not waste judicial time.
“Let us put an end to this issue. These types of matters should not engage the precious judicial time of the Court and should not bother the Court at all. We are a constitutional court, we are required to engage at a different level both as a judge and as a lawyer,”
she stated.
She further stressed the importance of mutual respect between judges and lawyers and acknowledged that the Gujarat High Court sets an example for the nation.
In response, Trivedi expressed regret over the incident, saying,
“I regret what happened on the 17th.”
The initial dispute occurred during a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) hearing on illegal constructions. Trivedi had accused the Chief Justice of not allowing lawyers to complete their arguments and even objected to her “looking elsewhere” during proceedings. He then demanded that the case be transferred to another Bench and left the courtroom before the hearing concluded.
Following the incident, the High Court issued an order criticizing Trivedi’s conduct:
“The conduct demonstrated by Mr. Brijesh Trivedi shows his utter disrespect towards the institution and his attitude which is not only unworthy of becoming an elected President of the Advocates’ Association but also unbecoming of an Advocate of the highest Court of the State.”
On January 20, Advocate General and senior advocates approached the Chief Justice to express regret over the incident. However, some GHCAA members objected, arguing that the AG did not consult them before taking this step. The GHCAA later held an Extraordinary General Body Meeting, passing a resolution stating that the Bar did not approve of the interaction.
On Monday, when the PIL was taken up again, several senior lawyers, including Bhaskar Tanha and Yatin Oza, urged the Court to settle the matter in the larger interest of maintaining harmony between the Bar and the Bench.
A formal application was filed to recall the January 17 order, which contained remarks against Trivedi.
Chief Justice Agarwal clarified that the court was compelled to make those remarks because Trivedi had done two things that were unacceptable: demanding that a judge recuse herself and leaving the courtroom without permission.
She warned that if such conduct was tolerated from the President of the Bar, it could set a dangerous precedent.
Also Read: 5 Lawyers Takes Oath As Additional Judges of Bombay High Court
“If you can bully the Chief Justice, you can bully any court,”
she remarked.
However, she also acknowledged that as a former lawyer herself, she understood that emotions sometimes run high.
“This is about the dignity and majesty of this Court. Everyone here has the responsibility and power to either put this institution down or build it up,”
she added.
Ultimately, after Trivedi acknowledged that the Court’s proposed order on illegal constructions was acceptable, the High Court agreed to remove the adverse remarks against him from the January 17 order.
With this resolution, the Gujarat High Court hopes to move forward from the controversy and focus on its core judicial responsibilities.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE