CJI Chandrachud Clarifies Case Listing Process Amid Allegations, Upholds Transparency in Supreme Court Proceedings

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, addressing recent allegations regarding the listing of cases in the Supreme Court, clarified the situation surrounding the listing of AAP leader Satyendar Jain’s petition. The case, initially heard by Justice A.S. Bopanna, was later listed before Justice Bela Trivedi due to Justice Bopanna’s medical unavailability post-Diwali vacation.

Also read- CJI Chandrachud Denies Deferring Satyendar Jain’s Bail Plea, Case Listed Before Justice Bela Trivedi (lawchakra.in)

CJI Chandrachud, responding to the concerns raised by senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan in their letters, stated,

“It is very easy to fling allegations and letters.”

He emphasized that the shift in the bench hearing Jain’s case was not a result of any irregularity or violation of norms but was due to Justice Bopanna’s health-related absence. The CJI explained,

“There is a communication from the office of Justice Bopanna. Due to medical reasons, he didn’t resume duties after Diwali. He wrote to the registry that all matters which were heard by him should be de-part heard and all the matters were de-part heard on his instruction. I cannot compel the learned judge to hear the case.”

This clarification came amid a backdrop of allegations suggesting a “design” in the listing of cases. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Jain, had requested the CJI in the morning session that Jain’s case should be listed before Justice Bopanna’s bench. However, the CJI refused to interfere, stating that it was for the presiding judge to decide.

Also read- Supreme Court Stresses On Dialogue Between Tamil Nadu Government And Governor To Resolve Legislative Deadlock (lawchakra.in)

The CJI further clarified that Jain’s petition was listed before Justice Trivedi as she was part of the earlier bench that had heard the case on multiple occasions when interim relief to the petitioner was extended. The current matter needed to be heard due to an application for the extension of interim bail.

The Supreme Court Bar Association President Adish C Aggarwala and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra have expressed full faith in the CJI, terming the allegations as baseless and misconceived. This situation highlights the challenges and sensitivities involved in the listing and allocation of cases in the apex court, underscoring the importance of transparency and trust in judicial processes.

Also read- Supreme Court Intervenes For Cleaner Air: Aims For Better Delhi Winter (lawchakra.in)