Today, On 9th October, Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal modified the SOP after lawyers raised concerns, stressing that “bar and bench must work together, not bang each other,” urging unity and cooperation for the smooth functioning of the court system.
The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) sent a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, requesting the transfer of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal. They argue that her tenure at the High Court has led to significant issues for both lawyers and litigants.
The recent call for Chief Justice Agarwal’s transfer stems from delays in the clearance of filings by the registry, following a new directive against overwriting or making changes to case files.
This issue stemmed from a directive issued on September 15 by the High Court’s Registrar (Judicial).
Today, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal of the Gujarat High Court informed the bar that the instructions regarding minor corrections, alterations, or deletions to petitions have been revised to alleviate the challenges faced by lawyers.
According to the updated directive, draft amendments submitted by lawyers for minor corrections or deletions will now be presented directly to the bench hearing the case, rather than being reviewed by the Registrar (Judicial).
The Chief Justice made this announcement in open court after bar members raised their concerns.
The instructions stated,
“As directed by Honourable Chief Justice, all the Litigants, Stakeholders and Party-in-Person are hereby informed that if any interpolation/correction/ overwriting/deletion by using whitener/striking off is found in the Petition/Application, without initials of the Petitioner/Applicant and the Notary concerned, at the time of filing, the same shall not be accepted by the Registry,”
A follow-up instruction indicated that “minor corrections, alterations or deletions can be made by filing draft amendments under the signature of the Advocate/Party-in-Person, as applicable, which shall be subject to approval by the Registrar (Judicial).”
However, lawyers expressed that the requirement for Registrar (Judicial) approval for draft amendments was causing unnecessary delays in filings.
One lawyer remarked in court,
“Minor typographical mistakes are being objected to by the registry. We are in the last week before Diwali, and there is a huge rush of filings. My request is that the old system may continue,”
In response, the Chief Justice stated that the part of the subsequent instruction regarding draft amendments needing approval from the Registrar (Judicial) has been removed, and this change has been communicated today.
The Chief Justice explained,
“The instruction created some problems for lawyers. So I have modified it upon learning about these issues. This was not known to me; nobody informed me about this problem. As soon as I became aware that draft amendments were being sent to the Registrar (Judicial), who is already burdened with numerous cases daily, I decided that this should not continue. Now, the draft amendment will go directly to the court along with the main matter for the court to determine whether to allow it. The line ‘subject to approval of Registrar (Judicial)’ was problematic, and I only learned about it yesterday,”
Regarding pending matters, the Chief Justice acknowledged the surge in filings due to Diwali, but assured that the Registrar (Judicial) and Registrar General are working diligently to streamline processes by Saturday, October 11.
Both the Chief Justice and Justice DN Ray, who was sitting alongside her, encouraged lawyers to engage in dialogue with the bench rather than resorting to monologues.
The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) previously sent a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, requesting the transfer of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, citing issues arising from her tenure that have hindered lawyers and litigants.
The GHCAA specifically objected to the September 15 instruction, claiming it had led to significant delays in the filing and clearance of cases.
The Chief Justice emphasized that the instructions and standard operating procedures (SOP) were designed for the effective functioning of the court. She encouraged the bar to raise individual concerns directly with her instead of placing blame on one another.
The Chief Justice stated,
“If any individual case you are facing difficulty, then come to me. It is always a collective effort of the bar and bench for the smooth functioning of the High Court. Banging each other is not going to help,”
Justice Ray added,
“Before resorting to monologue, resort to dialogue,”
The controversy began with an instruction issued on September 15 by the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, which stated,
“As directed by Honourable Chief Justice, all the Litigants, Stakeholders and Party-in-Person are hereby informed that if any interpolation/correction/ overwriting/ deletion by using whitener/ striking of is found in the Petition/Application, without initials of the Petitioner/Applicant and the Notary concerned, at the time of filing, the same shall not be accepted by the Registry.”
A follow-up instruction indicated that “minor corrections, alterations or deletions can be done by filing draft amendments under the signature of the Advocate/Party-in-Person, as the case may be, which shall be subject to approval by the Registrar (Judicial).”
According to the GHCAA, these instructions have caused significant delays in filing and clearing cases.
The letter to the CJI mentions that the Bar association sought a meeting with Chief Justice Agarwal to address these issues but was advised to submit a letter outlining their concerns.
Earlier, In January 2025, a notable dispute took place between Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Advocate Brijesh J. Trivedi, who serves as President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA), during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to illegal constructions.
Advocate Trivedi alleged that Chief Justice Agarwal frequently interrupted lawyers, including senior advocates, preventing them from completing their arguments.
He cited a quote by Lord Francis Bacon regarding “overspeaking judges,” suggesting that the Chief Justice’s behavior was inappropriate. Trivedi also criticized her apparent distraction during the proceedings and requested that the case be transferred to another bench.
Following his remarks, he exited the courtroom before the hearing concluded.
In response, Chief Justice Agarwal issued a strict order condemning Trivedi’s actions, stating that his conduct reflected “utter disrespect towards the institution” and was “unworthy of becoming an elected President of the Advocates’ Association” as well as “unbecoming of an Advocate of the highest Court of the State.”
Later, the Advocate General, along with several senior advocates, met the Chief Justice to express regret over the incident.
However, the GHCAA declined to accept the apology, stressing that any future representations on behalf of the Bar must first receive approval from the GHCAA to ensure collective accountability and proper decision-making.