New Delhi/IBNS: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has slammed a lawyer who used the informal word yeah in front of the CJI during a court hearing on Monday, media reports said.
In the court hearing, the lawyer referred to a 2018 petition where he had added former CJI Ranjan Gogoi as a respondent.
But is it an Article 32 plea? how can you file a PIL with a judge as a respondent, CJI Chandrachud asked the lawyer as quoted by NDTV.
Responding to the CJI, the lawyer said, Yeah, yeah the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi… I was asked to file a curative…
CJI Chandrachud immediately cut him off and said, This is not a coffee shop! What is this yeah yeah. I am very allergic to this yeah yeah. This cannot be allowed.
CJI Chandrachud slamming Karnataka HC judges Pakistan and undergarments remarks
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud last week said no part of India can be called Pakistan besides taking a strong note of the misogynistic remark passed by Karnataka High Court Vedavyasachar Srishananda.
In a court hearing, Justice Srishananda referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as Pakistan. The video of his remark went viral as the court proceedings are now live-streamed.
The same judge told a female lawyer that she has knowledge about her opponent to an extent that she even knows the colour of his undergarment.
In a suo motu cognisance, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by the CJI earlier had said there is a need to establish clear guidelines for constitutional court judges over their remarks in the courtroom.
On Wednesday, CJI Chandrachud said as quoted by NDTV, No one can call any part of territory of India as Pakistan, Chief Justice Chandrachud said. It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down.
Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments.
We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution, he added.
After a public apology from Justice Srishananda, the Supreme Court closed the proceedings.
