Expressing frustration, Justice Oka said during the hearing, “What is this? Because of this matter, we asked other litigants to go because we are hearing it (this case). And now you are raising a technical point which you ought to have raised at the beginning. People are in queue and you are wasting court’s time. This is not done. I will record all this in order.”
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently showed strong displeasure when Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave raised a technical objection during a hearing related to the grant of remission to a convict.
The Bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was especially unhappy because the objection was raised after half an hour of hearing, even though the Court had given this case priority on the afternoon of April 22.
To hear this case properly, the Supreme Court had discharged other matters that were listed for the same day.
Expressing frustration, Justice Oka said during the hearing, “What is this? Because of this matter, we asked other litigants to go because we are hearing it (this case). And now you are raising a technical point which you ought to have raised at the beginning. People are in queue and you are wasting court’s time. This is not done. I will record all this in order.”
The Court further noted that the preliminary objection raised by the ASG was about an issue that had already been mentioned by the Court in two earlier orders.
The Bench recorded in its order, “Raising such a preliminary objection after arguing the case for half an hour especially in the light of the two orders which we have quoted above is unfair to the other litigants whose cases were listed before this Court today.”
Justice Oka also made oral remarks about the larger problem of unnecessary objections being raised only to delay court proceedings.
He said, “Everyday we are experiencing this. Why such contentions are being raised (when) we know that there is a time limit. Therefore, all contentions are raised so that matter is postponed. It is not only unfair to us; it is unfair to so many litigants.”
After realising the Court’s displeasure, ASG Archana Pathak Dave immediately apologised. She admitted her mistake and requested to continue with the arguments without pressing the objection.
She said, “We are so sorry milords … It is my mistake, I take it up on me…I take it completely as my mistake. I give away with that objection, I can continue with the arguments. I will answer why I pointed that out.”
Justice Oka, highlighting the importance of effective use of Court time, further added, “Frankly speaking we are trying to take as many matters as possible. We feel very bad … People were waiting here. At 3:15 we told them to go away … If ultimately members of the bar feel that we should not work more, I am not prepared to exercise that option. Whatever may be the criticism, I am ready to accept it.”
Considering the situation, the Court adjourned the matter and allowed the petitioner (the convict seeking remission) to amend his petition to address the technical objection raised by the ASG.
The Bench noted, “Since this strong objection has been raised, we permit the petitioner to amend the Petition for raising the contention noted in the earlier orders, though this amendment is strictly not required in view of our earlier orders.”
The remission case was being heard to decide if the convict could be released from jail after completing twenty years of his life imprisonment sentence. This question had already been pointed out by the Supreme Court in two earlier orders — one passed in February and another in March.
The Court observed, “Above two orders gave a clear notice to all the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this Court was to consider the interpretation of the operative part of the judgment of the High Court.”
However, despite clear directions earlier, ASG Pathak Dave raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had not specifically included the ground regarding 20 years of sentence completion in his original petition.
ALSO READ: “Stringent Action May Be Taken for Suppression of Facts”: SC on Remission Plea
The ASG argued that because of this, the Court could not examine the issue.
The Bench took strong exception to this last-minute objection, explaining in its order, “While the learned ASG was arguing, we thought that the Advocates waiting for other cases should not be made to wait as remaining part of the day’s time was likely to be consumed in this case. Therefore, at 3:15 p.m., we discharged the rest of the cases on the cause list and informed the members of the Bar that those cases will not be taken up. Fifteen minutes thereafter, this preliminary objection was raised by the learned ASG. Therefore, raising such a preliminary objection after arguing the case for half an hour especially in the light of the two orders which we have quoted above, is unfair to the other litigants whose cases were listed before this Court today.”
Now, the Court has scheduled the next hearing of the case for May 7.
View Order
