In the august chambers of the Supreme Court, where the rule of law typically eclipses all else, a rare moment of empathy and concern was observed during the intense deliberations over the electoral bonds scheme. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta set a humane precedent by momentarily halting the legal discourse to ensure the well-being of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was visibly under the weather.
Also read- Supreme Court Continues Hearing On Electoral Bonds Scheme Validity (Day 2) (lawchakra.in)
The episode unfolded on a day earmarked by the Constitution Bench, headed by Justice Chandrachud, for the scrutiny of the electoral bonds issue—a subject that has sparked considerable debate across the political and legal spectrums. As Solicitor General Mehta presented arguments on behalf of the Centre, he paused, his attention shifting from the legalities to the absence of his counterpart, Mr. Sibal.
Solicitor General Mehta, upon noticing Sibal’s absence, expressed his concern and was informed of the senior advocate’s indisposition. This prompted a brief suspension of the proceedings, during which Mehta graciously offered his own chambers to Sibal, proposing a comfortable space for him to recover and suggesting that arrangements for tea and light refreshments be made available. He also recommended that Sibal could continue to participate in the hearing via video conferencing, ensuring that his health did not impede the judicial process.
Chief Justice Chandrachud, demonstrating leadership and compassion, joined in extending assistance. He offered the Supreme Court’s conference room for Sibal to use, allowing him to engage with the hearing through a video link. This gesture not only provided Sibal with the necessary respite but also maintained the continuity of the court’s proceedings.
After availing himself of the Chief Justice’s offer and participating remotely until the lunch recess, Sibal returned to the courtroom, ready to resume his role in the high-stakes debate. The post-lunch session saw a return to the day’s legal confrontations, but not without a touch of light-hearted banter reflecting the underlying respect between the legal luminaries.
An intriguing exchange ensued when Mehta, illustrating a point about anonymous political contributions, hypothetically referred to a donor’s preference for confidentiality, saying,
“As an example, if it is convenient for Mr Sibal, suppose that, as a contractor, I donate to the Congress party. I wouldn’t want the BJP to know because it could form a government in the coming days.”
Sibal, with a hint of humor and a nod to recent political developments, retorted,
“It seems that my learned friend has forgotten that I am no longer a member of the Congress party.”
This interaction not only underscored the day’s legal rigor but also the personal dynamics often overlooked in the narrative of the court. The day’s hearings concluded with a reaffirmation of the judiciary’s commitment to the law, tempered by a poignant reminder of the fraternity and civility that binds the legal community together.
