Today, On 28th May, The Supreme Court, commenting on the summer recess schedule, remarked that senior lawyers should avoid arguing cases during partial working days, sparking fresh discussions on courtroom discipline, fairness, and professional responsibility.
The Gujarat High Court strongly criticized advocate Deepak Khosla and his client for making baseless allegations against judges and senior lawyers, calling their plea “frivolous” and a waste of judicial time. The Court imposed a Rs 2 lakh fine and condemned Khosla’s use of unauthorized transcripts from YouTube livestreams as evidence. This is not Khosla’s first controversy, as he has faced multiple legal disputes, including a contempt case by the Supreme Court and a dismissed plea on 5G rollout with actress Juhi Chawla.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s farewell ceremony highlighted his transformative legacy, emphasizing his judicial reforms and embrace of technology. His tenure, marked by progressive rulings on civil liberties like same-sex marriage and privacy, left a significant impact on Indian jurisprudence. Legal peers lauded his approach, while some noted missed opportunities on critical issues.
Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath reaffirmed the ban on senior lawyers arguing cases during vacation sessions. He emphasized his authority, instructing senior lawyers to let their juniors argue and jokingly advised juniors not to pay seniors for hearing. This rule aims to provide juniors with more opportunities for experience during vacation hearings.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi criticized Congress in response to a letter from 600 lawyers to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, alleging efforts to influence the judiciary and tarnish the courts’ reputation. The letter seeks protective measures from the Supreme Court. The lawyers accuse a “vested interest group” of attempting to exert undue influence, tarnish the courts’ reputation, and undermine public trust.
Over 600 lawyers have written a letter to the Chief Justice Of India D Y Chandrachud raising serious concerns against the actions of a “specific interest group” aiming to undermine the judiciary. The letter to CJI by senior members of the bar has requested the Supreme Court to take protective measures against these attacks.