Today, On 12th July, The Supreme Court granted relief to Chandigarh shooter Manraj Singh Chatha, advising him against using his rifle in law practice. In June, a vacation bench of the high court directed the UT Department of Sports to issue the necessary sports gradation certificate to Chatha.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court affirmed the issuance of a sports gradation certificate to a shooter, allowing him to pursue a five-year law degree, with a humorous note from the justices, “At least become a good lawyer now. And do not use a rifle when you practise law.”
This remark came from justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan as they upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court‘s decision. The High Court deemed the denial of the sports certificate to Manraj Singh Chatha as “unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and irrational.”
Read Also: Supreme Court: ED Required Special Court Permission to Arrest PMLA Accused
The Supreme Court did not overturn the High Court‘s June judgment, which granted relief to Chatha but noted that the decision would not set a judicial precedent.
Chatha sought the High Court’s intervention after being denied the certificate because he was not enrolled in a school or college recognized by the Chandigarh Administration within the Union territory.
In June, a vacation bench of the High Court instructed the UT Department of Sports to issue the sports gradation certificate to Chatha within three days, allowing him to gain admission to a five-year integrated law program at Panjab University.
The high court noted that the denial of Manraj Singh Chatha‘s sports gradation certificate solely because he had not studied in a Chandigarh-recognized institution, even though he represented the Chandigarh Rifle Association at both state and national levels. The court highlighted that the refusal based on an arbitrary policy, unfairly penalizing Chatha for studying in Mohali while representing Chandigarh in sports competitions.
Arguing for the Union Territory‘s appeal, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati stated that their policy was intended to cover only those students who attended schools and colleges recognized by the UT Administration and situated in Chandigarh, with a requirement of studying there regularly for at least two years.
Bhati argued,
“We are not against this student or any other student, nor are we doubting the capabilities of the present petitioner. But our policy does not cover him, and if the high court judgment is upheld, it will undermine the objective and purpose of the policy,”
However, the bench responded that, given the specifics of the case, Chatha should receive the benefits of the certificate, even though the judgment would not serve as a precedent for others.
Read Also: Supreme Court ruling on NCDRC members’ court order violation
The court’s order stated,
“We are not inclined to interfere in the present facts of the case, but we clarify that the high court order will not be used as a precedent in any other case.”
As Chatha’s lawyer expressed gratitude, the bench humorously remarked,
“At least become a good lawyer now. And do not use a rifle when you practise law.”
This advisory highlights the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between one’s sporting pursuits and professional responsibilities, particularly in the field of law where such a combination could raise ethical and practical concerns. The Court’s decision highlights the delicate balance required in navigating dual careers and the necessity of adhering to the ethical standards of one’s profession.