New Delhi:

The Supreme Court has rejected a petition that sought lowering of the cut-offs in All India Bar Examination (AIBE) for law graduates, with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud adding a ‘please study’ advice for the petitioner.

The All India Bar Examination is conducted by the Bar Council of India, and law graduates must clear it to start their practice. This exam is conducted in over 10 languages twice a year and can be taken at any age. The subjects in the exam are wide-ranging, including Constitutional laws, criminal laws, PILs, environmental laws and industry laws. Taxation and intellectual property laws are also part of the syllabus, along with several other branches.

Currently, the cut-off for this exam is 45 per cent of general category of OBC candidates and 40 per cent for applicants from SC/ST categories.

“They have put a cut-off of 45 for general, OBC and 40 for SC/ST …what kind of lawyer will the person be if they cannot score this much?,” the Chief Justice said. He then added, “Padho bhai”.

Recently, in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, the Bar Council had said that over 50 per cent of candidates who took the exam last year had failed to clear it.

According to the AIBE website, it is an open book exam aimed at assessing basic level knowledge and analytical skills for a candidate willing to practise law.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court today witnessed dramatic exchanges when a Lucknow-based advocate requested two separate benches to pardon him and remove costs imposed on him for filing frivolous Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

First, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine G Masih pulled up Lucknow-based advocate Ashok Pandey for not paying cost of Rs 50,000 imposed on him. The cost was imposed last year after the top court dismissed the lawyer’s plea challenging the appointment of Supreme Court advocates as High Court judges.

The bench noted that the lawyer travelled abroad soon after the court imposed the cost. “Now you cannot say that you can’t pay cost of Rs 50,000,” the bench said, noting that he is a “practising lawyer”.

To this, Mr Pandey said he has not got a single case since last year and that his trip was “sponsored by my kids”.

“You pay the cost in a week else we will issue a contempt (notice). Are you willing to pay in 2 weeks or not? You are the member of the bar, we request you to answer it clearly,” the bench said.

The lawyer replied that his “children are rich, but I am poor”. Referring to former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, he claimed, “I had initially filed several petitions for CJI Dipak Misra when a lot of allegations were put against him. Nobody from this court supported him but I was there. I have requested the CJI and President of India for the payment in those cases. CJI has referred my matter to SCLSC (Supreme Court Legal Services Committee) for payment. I will pay lordship.”

Justice Oka granted the lawyer time till August 5 and added that the court will issue a contempt notice if the payment is not made by then.

The lawyer was then puilled up by another bench — of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan — for not paying Rs 1 Lakh imposed on him in a separate matter. This was in connection to a PIL last year in which Mr Pandey had challenged the reinstatement of the Lok Sabha Membership of NCP’s Mohd Faizal Padippura. The court had come down heavily on the lawyer over the frivolous PIL. Mr Pandey has earlier also challenged the oath taken by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court. He had said that the Chief Justice did not say “I” while taking the oath. This lawyer had also challenged the restoration of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership, attracting another fine. 

Justice Gavai asked the lawyer, “How many courts have imposed cost on you?” He replied, “Please recall the cost. I don’t have money.” The bench rejected the plea, but the lawyer persisted. “If you don’t leave the court, we will have to embarrass ourselves,” Justice Gavai said.

The lawyer stayed put and said, “I am requesting with folded hands. This is no contempt, Sir… Please remove cost from this case.” He then addressed Justice Gavai and said, “You are also going to be next CJI.” The judge responded, “God knows”, and added, “Are you leaving or not? We have to call the security personnel.”

Justice Gavai is the third seniormost judge in Supreme Court and is in line to be Chief Justice of India.

This was not all. Mr Pandey then approached Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and complained against Justice Gavai. He said that the senior judge had warned him that his “sanad” — meaning licence to practice law — will be revoked. 

The Chief Justice replied that heated arguments do take place, but warned the lawyer against making such allegations. “You cannot make allegations like this on the judges of the bench. They never misbehave with lawyers. If you want to challenge the fines, file a review,” he said.  

The Supreme Court has pulled up petitioners and lawyers over frivolous PILs, with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud saying that the public is paying for precious judicial time. 

New Delhi:

How much fee did Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud bill his client when he fought his first case in the Bombay High Court a long time ago as a legal professional, fresh out of law school?

Rs 60.

That’s what Chief Justice Chandrachud said on Monday while hearing a matter on charging “high fees” for enrolment in bar councils in different states.

In 1986, Chief Justice Chandrachud had returned from Harvard and started practising law in the Bombay High Court. That year, his first case was before Justice Sujata Manohar for an urgent hearing. He earned the Rs 60 fee for this work.

At that time, lawyers would not usually ask for fee in Indian rupees, but in gold ‘mohar’, as was done during the colonial days.

Case briefing files given to lawyers on behalf of their clients included a green docket on which the words “GM” (gold mohar), instead of rupees, would be written. There, lawyers would write their fee in “GM”.

One gold mohar was about Rs 15 at that time. A young Chief Justice Chandrachud wrote “4 GM” on the docket and got the fee of Rs 60.

This trend was prevalent in the Bombay High Court till 25 years ago, sources said. The price of one GM in the Calcutta High Court was Rs 16.

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions challenging the enrolment fee charged by bar councils in different states as exorbitant. The Bench also included Justice JB Pardiwala.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned whether bar councils can charge a fee higher than the amount mentioned in the Advocates Act, 1961 which says Rs 600 for state bar councils and Rs 150 for the Bar Council of India.

The Bench noted there was no uniformity in the fees charged by state bar councils. In some states such as Kerala, Maharashtra, and Delhi, it is in the range of Rs 15,000, while in others like Odisha it is Rs 41,000.

The bench observed that the legal question was whether the bar councils can charge a sum higher than what is mentioned in the law.

“It is for parliament to increase the enrolment fee. It is a valid point you raised on the various expenses to run the state bar councils. But the law is very clear. You cannot charge more than Rs 600,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

In July 2023, the Supreme Court had transferred to itself petitions pending in high courts on this issue.

Last year, the Kerala High Court directed the Bar Council of Kerala to collect only Rs 750 as enrolment fee from law graduates wishing to enrol, till the Bar Council of India considers a uniform fee structure.

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud during an interview to NDTV gave a peek into how a typical day starts for him, one of the custodians of the Constitution. For the Chief Justice of India, the day begins at 3.30 am.

“The environment is calm at 3.30 am. At that time I can contemplate on things, and do yoga. I have been doing yoga for 25 years,” Chief Justice Chandrachud told NDTV.

His best friend, the Chief Justice said, is his wife Kalpana Das with whom he maintains an Ayurvedic diet.

“We both are vegan, and our lifestyle is plant-based. I think whatever we eat affects our brain. I think your fitness comes from within, from within yourself, from your mind, from your heart. You can be as fit as you want,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

“My life is no different from other people’s lives. It has ups and downs. I have seen many aspects of life as have others. You should always keep hope to overcome any problem. It is important to understand that every difficulty has a purpose. You will not know about it then, but you will know later,” the Chief Justice said.

The Chief Justice also shared some tips about healthy eating. “I prefer to eat ramdana and not wholegrains. In Maharashtra, sabudana khichid is made on fasting days, so I eat ramdana. I have been fasting every Monday for the past 25 years. Ramdana is a must-have in Maharashtra,” he said. “It’s a very light food, and is one of the healthiest,” he added.

Does Chief Justice Chandrachud have a cheat day? “Yes,” he said. “I like ice-cream on my cheat day.”

“Half of your difficulties will be solved if you keep your mind under control,” he said.

Chief Justice Chandrachud began serving as the head of the Supreme Court in November 2022 for a two-year tenure. His father, Chief Justice YV Chandrachud, was the longest-serving Chief Justice Of India.

Chief Justice Chandrachud holds an undergraduate degree in Economics from St Stephen’s College. He later completed LLB from Delhi University, and LLM and a doctorate from Harvard Law School in the US.

New Delhi:

As the Centre and State Bank of India (SBI) flagged the social media fallout of the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in the electoral bonds case, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said the court’s “shoulders are broad enough” to tackle such commentary.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by the CJI today asked SBI to disclose all details related to electoral bonds. It was hearing petitions that said the state-run bank had released “incomplete data” on political funding through the now-scrapped scheme.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the court must be informed about how its judgment is playing out. “The witch-hunting has started on another level and not at the government level. Those before the court started giving press interviews, deliberately embarrassing the court. It is not a level playing field. There is a barrage of social media posts intended to cause embarrassment,” he said.

Statistics, Mr Mehta said, “can be twisted as people want”. “Based upon twisted statistics, any kind of posts are made. Would your lordships consider issuing a direction?” he asked.

To this, the Chief Justice replied, “As judges, we are governed by the rule of law, and we work as per the Constitution. As judges, we are also discussed in social media, but as an institution, our shoulders are broad enough to deal with social media commentary.”

As the Solicitor General cited a “media campaign” on the electoral bonds issue, the Chief Justice doubled down, “Recently, in an interview, I was asked about the criticism of a judgment. I said that as a judge, we cannot defend our judgments, once we deliver a judgment, it becomes public property.”

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for SBI, said the “media is always behind us, with the petitioners saying they will take the SBI to task, haul them up in contempt”. Stressing that the bank is not holding back any information, Mr Salve flagged the risk of a series of Public Interest Litigation (PIL). “Voter knowing is one thing. But if there are PILs saying investigate this and that, I don’t think that is the intent of this court’s judgment,” he said. Mr Salve also said “verdicts are being used for hidden agendas”.

The bank was in for some tough talk today, when the Chief Justice said, “SBI’s attitude seems to be ‘you tell us what to disclose, we will disclose’. That does not seem to be fair. When we say ‘all details’, it includes all conceivable data.”

The court eventually asked the bank to disclose all details, including the alphanumeric number and serial number, if any, of the bonds redeemed. It also asked the SBI chairman to submit an affidavit, stating that no info has been withheld. The Election Commission was asked to upload the data received from SBI.

New Delhi:

The president of the Supreme Court Bar Association was in for some tough talk by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud during the hearing on electoral bonds today. Adish Aggarwala, senior advocate and president of the lawyers’ body, had sought a suo motu review of the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment last month in which it scrapped the electoral bonds scheme and directed the State Bank of India to release all details of political funding made through bonds.

When Mr Aggarwala mentioned the matter today, the Chief Justice replied, sternly, “Apart from being a senior counsel, you are president of SCBA. You have written a letter invoking my suo motu powers. These are all publicity-related stuff and we will not get into this. Do not make me say anything more. It will be distasteful.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta dissociated from Mr Aggarwala’s request. “We don’t support this.”

The senior lawyer had earlier sparked a row when he wrote to President Droupadi Murmu, urging her to seek presidential reference of the Supreme Court judgment in the electoral bonds case.

The Supreme Court Bar Association had distanced itself from his views and said members of the panel had not authorised Mr Aggarwala to write to the President.

“It has become expedient for the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association to make it abundantly clear that the members of the committee have neither authorised the President (Aggarwala ) to write any such letter nor do they subscribe to his views as expressed therein.

“The Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association further views this act as well as the contents therein as an attempt to overreach and undermine the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and unequivocally condemn the same,” a resolution issued by the bar association’s Secretary Rohit Pandey said.

The resolution said that the letter by Mr Aggarwala appears to have been written by him in his capacity as Chairman of All India Bar Association. “However, it is noticed that below his signature on said letter he has inter-alia mentioned his designation as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association,” it said.

The senior lawyer had, in his letter to the President, urged her to seek presidential reference of the top court ruling and not to give effect to it unless the matter is heard again.

“Revealing the names of corporates that had contributed to different political parties would render the corporates vulnerable to victimisation,” he wrote. He added that if the judgment is given effect retrospectively and all information released, “the reputation the nation enjoys in the international arena” will be shattered.

The Supreme Court today accepted the request for an urgent hearing on a petition challenging the decision to exclude the Chief Justice of India from the panel that selects election commissioners. Justice Sanjeev Khanna told advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms, that they have got a message from the Chief Justice and the matter will be listed on Friday.

This comes at a time when the poll body has two vacancies in its top panel. Election Commissioner Arun Goel resigned last week and his colleague on the top panel, Anup Chandra Pandey, retired last month. This leaves only Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar on the top panel, and the Lok Sabha election – the biggest event for the poll body – is weeks away.

As per the current procedure to appoint election commissioners, a search committee led by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal will prepare two panels of five names each for the two posts. Later, a selection committee led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and comprising a Union Minister and Leader of the Congress in Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury will name two persons for appointment.

The selection committee is likely to meet today or tomorrow and government sources have told news agency PTI that both vacant posts may be filled by Friday.

The ADR’s petition puts the spotlight on the rules for appointment of Election Commissioners.

Last year, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that the top poll officials must be appointed on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Chief Justice of India, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha.

Months later, the Centre brought the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023. This legislation, which cleared the Parliament, dropped the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel. Instead, a Union Minister was put on it. This gave the Executive more heft on the panel.

The ADR’s petition challenges this move. Congress leader Jaya Thakur has also challenged the law in Supreme Court.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had refused to pause appointments under the new law last month. But the matter has gathered steam after the resignation of Mr Goel. The Centre has drawn fire from the Opposition, which has alleged a “systemic decimation” of government institutions.

On February 13, the court had refused to pause appointments, but sought the Centre’s reply to the petition challenging the new process.

New Delhi:

Intense arguments in the case related to Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) alleged encroachment were interspersed with some humour this afternoon when Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi that he should not have appeared for the political party in this case. “In this matter, you should not appear. You cannot oppose land for Delhi High Court. You should be supporting us,” the Chief Justice told Mr Singhvi in a lighter vein.

The court today ordered the Arvind Kejriwal-led party to vacate the plot on Delhi’s Rouse Avenue, now called Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, by June 15. It noted that the land was allotted to the Delhi High Court for expanding its infrastructure.

The three-judge bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra has asked AAP to approach the Land and Development office for an alternate plot for its headquarters. The court said it would request the Land and Development office to respond to AAP’s application within four weeks. The department comes under the Centre’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs.

Arguing on behalf of AAP, Mr Singhvi said the party is entitled to a plot for its headquarters and underlined that it is among six national parties in the country. “I cannot be put on the road ahead of the elections. This matter can be solved through some political cooperation,” said Mr Singhvi, also a senior Congress leader. He said the party has been offered a plot in Badarpur. “They are telling us that as a national party, we get nothing. I am given Badarpur, while others are at better places. Let all the parties then relocate to Badarpur,” Mr Singhvi said.

The Chief Justice responded, “You are using our good offices to get a plot. How can we permit it?”

In the course of the arguments, Mr Singhvi also said the Delhi High Court is his parent court. “I don’t want them to be denied space,” he said.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said AAP must vacate the plot. “How can they hold the Supreme Court and High Court to ransom,” he asked.

The Supreme last month pulled up AAP over the alleged encroachment. “No one can take law into their own hands. How can a political party sit tight on that? Unencumbered possession must be given to the High Court. What will the High Court use it for? Only for the public and citizens. Why was the land then allotted to the High Court?” the Chief Justice had said.

The court took note of the matter while looking at cases related to judicial infrastructure across the country.

The AAP has denied allegations of encroachment. It has said the plot was allotted to the party by the Delhi government. Mr Singhvi today said the plot was allotted to AAP in 2015. Amicus Curiae K Parmeshwar pointed out that the plot was earmarked in 2022 for the construction of family courts, and noted that nothing was brought to the notice of the High Court to show that the land had been allotted to any political party.

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud has said judges, though not elected, have a very vital role to play because the judiciary has a “stabilising influence” in the evolution of societies which are rapidly changing with technology.

He was responding to the most common criticism that unelected judges should not venture into executive’s domain. He made the observations while speaking in the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion co-hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center, Washington and the Society for Democratic Rights (SDR), New Delhi on the topic – ‘Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’.

“I believe that judges have a very vital role to play though we are not elected. We don’t go back to the people every five years to seek their votes. But, there’s a reason for that… I do believe that the judiciary, in that sense, is a stabilising influence in the evolution of our societies, particularly in something like our age which is so rapidly changing with technology,” the CJI said.

The judges are the voice of something which must subsist beyond “the vicissitudes of time” and the courts have the ability to provide stabilising influence in the societies.

“I do believe that we have a role to play in the overall stability of our own civilizations, our own cultures, particularly in the context of a plural society, such as India,” he said.

As part of a cultural and social background, the CJI said that the courts have become focal points of engagement between civil society and the quest for social transformation.

“So, people approach the courts, not just for outcomes. Let’s be very clear, people approach the courts also for a voice in the process of constitutional change…,” he said. This is a complex question and there are several reasons as to why people come to courts more often, he said.

“It is very important for courts… because we are as many institutions of governance… of course there is the principle of the separation of powers. We don’t take upon ourselves the role of the legislature or we don’t take upon ourselves the role of the executive,” he said.

The courts are becoming places where people come in order to give vent to the expression for the society which they aspire to achieve, he said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

There may be a thousand issues meriting attention but everything cannot be entertained to make the Supreme Court dysfunctional, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Tuesday while declining to hear an interim plea on the deaths of captive elephants in Kerala.

“These are local issues which may be dealt with by the high courts. If they make an egregious error then we are here to correct those errors. But you know … how can we run the country,” a bench comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra said.

“What is the role of the Supreme Court in the nation … we are not to deal with these, you know, micromanagement of issues which arise all over the country. If the high court commits an egregious error we are here and will correct the error,” it said.

Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing for an intervenor, at the outset raised the issue of deaths of captive elephants in Kerala, violation of rules and sought an urgent hearing.

“More than 135 captive elephants in Kerala died due to neglect, and overwork between February 2019 to November 2022,” he said.

The bench asked Mr Singh to approach the high court with the grievance, saying the judges there are aware of the local conditions and the ramifications.

The Chief Justice was irked over the “proliferation” of interim applications in pending cases and stressed the need to understand the role of the Supreme Court.

On being insisted that the matter be heard in the Supreme Court itself, the bench said, “Now we cannot entertain everything here to make the Supreme Court dysfunctional.”

“We are of the view that it will not be possible to entertain such IAs (interim applications). The intervenor may be heard on substantive issues when the writ petition is listed,” the bench said and listed the main case for hearing in December.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)