New Delhi:

The Supreme Court Bar Association, led by senior lawyer and Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal, has questioned the “radical changes” at the Supreme Court, including its new emblem and the statue of Lady Justice, and said the lawyers’ body was not consulted about them.

The bar association’s resolution said a museum has now been proposed at a location where they had demanded a cafe for lawyers. They have expressed concern that work on the museum has started despite their objection and opposed this move.

“It is observed by the Executive Committee of Supreme Court Bar Association that recently some radical changes have been brought in by the Supreme Court unilaterally like change of its emblem, change in the statue of Lady Justice without consultation with the Bar. We are equal stakeholders in the administration of justice but these changes when proposed, were never brought to our attention. We are totally clueless on the rationale behind these changes,” the resolution says.

“Now a museum has apparently been proposed in the erstwhile Judges Library whereas we had demanded a Library, Cafe cum Lounge for the members of the Bar as the present cafeteria is inadequate to cater to the needs of the members of the Bar. We are concerned that despite our objection raised against the proposed Museum in the erstwhile Judges library, work has started for the museum,” says the resolution, signed by Mr Sibal and other office-bearers of the lawyers’ body.

“We unanimously oppose the proposed museum in the High Security Zone and press our demand for a Library and a Cafe cum Lounge for our members instead,” it adds.

In the new Lady Justice statue in the Supreme Court, the blindfold has come off and a copy of the Constitution has replaced the sword in her left hand. The blindfold’s removal is aimed at sending a message that the law in the country is not blind, while the sword was replaced because it is a symbol of violence.

The Lady Justice statue, found at courts across the world, carries scales symbolising balance, has a blindfold symbolising impartiality and holds a sword suggesting that justice is swift and final. Several countries have made changes to this statue over time.

According to sources associated with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s office, he believes that India should move on from the British legacy and that law is never blind, but sees everyone equally.

“Therefore, the Chief Justice said that the form of the Lady of Justice should be changed. He said the statue should have the Constitution in one hand and not a sword, so that a message goes out to the country that she dispenses justice according to the Constitution. The sword is a symbol of violence but courts deliver justice according to constitutional laws,” a source said.

The scales in the right hand, the source said, have been retained because they represent balance in society and symbolise courts weighing arguments from both sides before delivering a verdict.

The top court also has a new emblem and flag. The blue flag displays the Ashoka Chakra, the Supreme Court building and the Constitution. It has the Sanskrit verse ‘Yato Dharmastato Jai’ — meaning ‘Where there is Dharma, there is victory’ — written on it.

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.