[RG Kar Rape-Murder] “Lower Your Pitch, Noticing Your Demeanour For The Last 2 Hours”: CJI Slams Lawyer, He Apologises

Vaibhav Ojha

1 year ago

CJI DY Chandrachud Today (Sept 9) asked a lawyer to lower his voice and asked if he was addressing the judges or the gallery outside the court. The three-judge bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice JB Pardiwala, was hearing the Kolkata RG Kar doctor’s rape and murder case that has shaken the nation. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said he had videos and photographs to show that the lawyer was throwing stones at a protest.

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

[RG Kar Rape-Murder] "Lower Your Pitch, Noticing Your Demeanour For The Last 2 Hours": CJI Slams Lawyer, He Apologises

NEW DELHI: During the hearing of the Kolkata doctor’s rape and murder case, Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Monday asked a lawyer to lower his voice, questioning whether he was addressing the bench or an audience outside the courtroom.

The case, which has garnered national attention, was being heard by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

The exchange occurred during the arguments when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal made serious allegations against Advocate Kaustav Bagchi, accusing him of throwing stones during a protest over the August 9 incident at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, a state-run institution in Kolkata.

Advocate Kaustav Bagchi, a BJP leader who switched from Congress to the BJP earlier this year, was quick to respond to Mr. Sibal’s accusation.

“How can a senior counsel make such statements in court?”

-Mr. Bagchi asked, challenging the claim.

Chief Justice Chandrachud then intervened, urging Mr. Bagchi to maintain courtroom decorum.

“Are you trying to address the gallery outside the court? I have been noticing your demeanor for the last two hours,”

-CJI remarked.

“Can you first lower your pitch? Listen to the Chief Justice, lower your pitch. You are addressing three judges in front of you, not the large audience who is watching these proceedings on the video conferencing platform,”

-he added firmly.

In response, Mr. Bagchi apologized to the bench, acknowledging the Chief Justice’s reprimand.

Following this courtroom drama, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) responded critically to Mr. Bagchi’s conduct, issuing a scathing statement.

“But what else can we expect from a loudmouth half-time advocate, full-time @BJP4India karyakarta @koustavcp who thinks courtroom decorum can be bulldozed like everything else under their rule? Today, the Hon’ble Chief Justice rightfully pulled him up for his misconduct,”

-the TMC said, using the incident to target Bagchi’s political affiliation.

As the session continued, the court grew increasingly chaotic, with multiple lawyers attempting to argue various points simultaneously. Chief Justice Chandrachud expressed his disapproval of this approach, remarking,

“I am not used to this kind of advocacy where 7-8 people are arguing at the same time.”

Regarding the case itself, the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a fresh report next Tuesday. The CBI had earlier flagged concerns over the forensic evidence, raising questions about the handling of the crime scene.

The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, informed the court that samples from the case had been sent to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi for further analysis.

“We have forensic examination report and one thing is admitted that when the girl was found at 9:30 am, her jeans and undergarments were removed and lying nearby… semi-nude and injury marks also on body… they have taken samples. they have sent to CFSL in West Bengal. CBI has taken a decision to send the sample to AIIMS,”

-Mehta stated.

The Solicitor General further emphasized the importance of determining who collected the samples at the crime scene.

“Person enters, girl is nude and this is the result of FSL. So who took the sample is relevant,”

-he said, indicating that the handling of evidence would be a critical point in the investigation.

As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court’s request for a fresh report next week signals that key questions remain unresolved, including the accuracy and integrity of the forensic evidence that could prove pivotal in the investigation.

PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT

In a hearing concerning the tragic death of a postgraduate trainee doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College & Hospital in Kolkata on August 9, 2024, the Supreme Court expressed serious concerns about the manner in which the West Bengal police have handled the case.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, scrutinized the procedural lapses by the Kolkata police. Justice Pardiwala remarked,

“The entire procedure that has been followed by the State Police is something that I have not come across in my 30 years of career,”

-underscoring the severity of the issue.

At the outset of the hearing, Counsel for AIIMS Nagpur informed the Bench that resident doctors were facing punitive measures, including being marked absent and barred from exams, due to their participation in protests.

“One aspect is extremely disturbing, the GD (general diary) entry of death is recorded at 10:10 AM… the securing of the crime scene, the seizures etc was done at 11:30 at night? what all was happening by then?”

-CJI On State’s Role In RG Kar Hospital Rape-Murder Case

The Counsel requested leniency from the Court regarding these exam-related matters. Chief Justice Chandrachud assured the Counsel that no adverse actions would be taken against doctors if they returned to work, stating,

“Let them all return to work. We will pass some general order; please be rest assured that once doctors resume duties, we will prevail upon authorities to not take adverse actions. How will public administrative structure run if they don’t resume work?”

Counsel for PGIMER Chandigarh Doctors also reported that resident doctors who had participated in a rally had returned to work, though their casual leaves had been canceled.

The CJI reiterated the importance of doctors returning to their duties and reassured them that their concerns would be addressed by the National Task Force (NTF) Committee, stating,

“The National Task Force (NTF) Committee will ensure it will hear all representatives, we will reiterate that in our order.”

He further remarked,

“Our hearts go out to all those going to public hospitals; we will make a statement that resident doctors will be heard, your stakes and inputs are very high.”

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing the Delhi Medical Association (DMC), urged the Court to consider additional measures, including a distress call system on watches, institutional FIR filing procedures for families, and the fast-tracking of cases.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, flagged several issues from the CBI’s status report, particularly discrepancies in the date and time recordings by the Kolkata police.

Upon reviewing the CBI’s status report, the CJI requested details on the deceased victim’s report. SG Mehta noted that by the time the CBI took over the investigation on the fifth day,

“everything was altered.”

He highlighted that the FIR was only lodged at 11:45 pm, after the victim’s cremation, and that the victim’s parents were initially misled about the cause of death, being told that she was sick and then that she committed suicide, only to later learn that she was murdered.

Mehta added that the senior doctors and colleagues of the victim, who had requested videography, believed there was a cover-up.

In defense, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State of West Bengal, claimed that they had recorded everything, including the timings of the events, and that nothing had been altered. However, the CJI pointed out that while there was a recording of the post-mortem, there was no recording of the crime scene itself.

SG Mehta then brought to the Court’s attention a 2023 complaint related to the case, to which Sibal requested a copy, asserting that if it were a formal complaint, it would be public record.

The CJI expressed deep concern over the delay in securing the crime scene, noting,

“There is one aspect that is very disturbing, Mr. Sibal. The UD entry of unnatural death is recorded at 10:10 AM; the securing of the crime scene, the seizures, etc., were done at 11:30 at night. What was happening by then?”

Justice Misra echoed these concerns, emphasizing that the post-mortem was conducted in the evening, but the UD entry was not recorded until much later. Sibal defended the state’s actions, citing minute-by-minute videographic evidence, but Justice Pardiwala questioned the timeline, particularly how the post-mortem could precede the registration of the unnatural death.

The Court asked Sibal to ensure that a responsible police officer involved in the investigation be present to answer queries at the next hearing. Justice Pardiwala reiterated his concerns, stating,

“The entire procedure that has been followed by the State police is something that I have not come across in my 30 years of career.”

He specifically questioned the role of an Assistant Superintendent Non-Medical, whose conduct was deemed “very doubtful.”

During the hearing, the CBI’s Joint Director was present in Court, and Senior Advocate Bikashranjan Bhattacharya represented the victim’s family. Sibal informed the Bench that the original case diary had been handed over to the CBI as soon as the Calcutta High Court ordered the transfer of the investigation, and he also submitted an affidavit to both the Court and the CBI.

Sibal’s remarks on the affidavit’s contents were met with concern, particularly given the gravity of the case and the ongoing protests. SG Mehta pointed out that the case had already gained significant attention on social media, which Sibal acknowledged, warning of potential protests during the upcoming hearing on August 27.

In its previous hearing, the Supreme Court had criticized the State of West Bengal for its handling of the vandalism at the protest site and directed the formation of a “National Task Force” to recommend measures for ensuring the safety of medical professionals. The Court also ordered the deployment of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to protect resident doctors, especially female doctors, at RG Kar Hospital.

The Apex Court had earlier expressed disappointment over the lack of institutional safety norms at medical establishments, addressing concerns over both violence and sexual harassment. It also ordered the immediate removal of all social media content referencing the name, photos, and videos of the victim.

The tragic case, which has shaken the nation, prompted a letter from Advocate Ujjawal Gaur of the Supreme Court Bar Association to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, urging the Court to take suo moto cognizance of the matter. The letter emphasized the need for the highest court to intervene with the urgency and gravity the situation demands, stating,

“The nation looks to the judiciary as the ultimate guardian of justice, the last refuge for those whose cries have been silenced by brutality.”

Recently, the Calcutta High Court ordered the transfer of the investigation from the Kolkata Police to the CBI in response to public interest litigations (PILs) alleging mishandling by state authorities. Petitioners claimed that there were visible injuries on the victim’s body, including the private parts, and that her death was due to rape and murder by multiple offenders.

The Chief Minister of West Bengal had also stated that the state had no objection to the CBI taking over the investigation.

Earlier, the High Court had questioned the state government’s urgency in carrying out renovation work near the crime scene immediately after the incident.

The state’s counsel claimed the work was unrelated to the crime scene, but the Court ordered a detailed reply on various aspects of the case by August 20, with the next hearing scheduled for August 21.