[Breaking News] Indian Bar Association appeals all High Court & Supreme Court Judges to protest the unlawful activities of Chief Justice of India Shri. D.Y. Chandrachud, including attack on Independence of High Court and Contempt of Binding precedents of the Supreme Court.
In the 122-page letter the Indian Bar Association pointed out various instances to all the judges as to how the CJI Chandrachud is acting contrary to law and against the law laid down by the larger benches of the Supreme Court and violated the fundamentals rights of Supreme Court & High Court Judges like Justice G.S. Singhvi of Supreme Court and Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay of Calcutta High Court. It is also the grievance of the Indian Bar Association that CJI Chandrachud had acted against the binding precedents in not taking action of Contempt against Abhishek Banerjee & Adv. A.M. Singhvi for making allegations of malafides on affidavit against a High Court Judge for his judicial orders.
Instead of taking action against Adv. A.M. Singhvi, CJI Chandrachud had passed an order of withdrawal of the case from the Bench of Justice Abhijit Gangapadhyay without hearing the said Judge. This is having demoralizing effect upon the said Judge.
The subject of the representation reads thus;
“Request to all Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and Hon’ble Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts in India to use their good offices to prevent damage to the judicial institution being caused by Ld. Chief Justice of India Sh. D.Y. Chandrachud by his wilful disregard of binding precedents of the Supreme Court and attack on Independence of Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts: –
(a) Passing an adverse order in SLP and directing The Acting Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to withdraw a case from the file of High Court Judge, without hearing the ld. Judge, which has impact of raising doubt upon the integrity of the said Judge of High Court, which is against the basic principle of natural justice, audi alterim partem rule and against the specific law laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, In re, (2001) 3 SCC 54, Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 6 SCC 491, etc.
(b) By giving discriminatory treatment and violating the fundamental rights of Supreme Court Judge Sh. G. S. Singhavi regarding his judicial order and passing adverse remarks and strictures by putting the name of Justice Singhavi only in a case of K. Puttuswamy Vs UOI (2017) 10 SCC 1, where Justice Singhavi was shown in bad light to show that Justice Singhavi had committed blunder in fact the impugned judgment in the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation (2014) 1SCC 1, was unanimous judgment of the Bench; and the CJI Chandrachud in his same criticizing judgment had not put the name of Judges who wrote the flawed judgment in the case of ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521, even though said judgment was also criticized and overruled.
The record ex facie shows that the act to show Justice Singhavi in bad light was done only for the personal emotiobnal outburst of CJI Sh. D. Y. Chandrachud as he is deeply emotionally attached to the issue of rights of LGBTQA and he himself is propagating said rights on and off the bench and The record also shows that if anyone makes any comments, observations against the rights of LGBTQA or even if any Advocates including Solicitor General of India objects the petition filed in this regard then Justice Chandrachud gets irritated and annoyed and he forgot all the law and constitution and straightaway insults such people. Such detailed proofs and incidences are also given by Sh Rashid Khan Pathan in his complaint against CJI D. Y. Chandrachud.
Actually CJI Sh. D. Y. Chandrachud was disqualified to hear said cases or pass any order as per law laid down in Mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1960) 2 SCR 609, State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2012) 14 SCC 770, Regina v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2),  2 WLR 272, S.C.A.O.R. A. vs UOI (2016) 5 SCC 808, Caperton et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., et al., 2009 SCC OnLine US SC 65;
The adverse remarks against Justice Singhavi were against the law laid down by the Supreme Court which mandates for not passing any adverse remarks against Judge personally for his judicial orders and if any remarks needs to be passed then it can only be done only after hearing the Judge and not in his absence as ruled in ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, In re, (2001) 3 SCC 54, Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 6 SCC 491, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248;
(c) By not acting as per ratio laid down binding precedents such as Municipal Council Tikamgarh v. Matsya Udyog Sahkari Samiti, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1900, etc. and not taking action of contempt against the powerful petitioner like Abhishek Banerjee and their advocates Abhishek Manu Singhavi and others, who had made false and baseless allegations of malafides and attributed motive against High Court Judge regarding his passing a judicial order;
(d) For passing a non-reasoned order in SLP and directing Acting Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, to withdraw a case from Ld. Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay and reassign it to another Judge, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as per law laid down by the three Judge Bench in Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Chief Justice S. Teja Singh, 1954 SCR 454;”
The letter is based on following 15 grounds:
“1. The special powers of CJI coupled with its limitations, duties and responsibilities as explained by the Supreme Court time to time.
2. As per law laid down by the Constitution Bench, only because a person becomes CJI has no presumption that he is perfect and cannot commit mistakes or cannot misuse the power and therefore appropriate safeguards are provided in the system. Our Constitution is designed on the theory of checks and balances. A theory which is the product of the belief that all power corrupts. The Constitution Benches have also considered the situation of CJI becoming accused of criminal offences and had set up the procedure to be followed by the Hon’ble President of India regarding sanction to prosecution and to register FIR against him/her.
The ‘In-House –procedure’ set up by the Full Court had also made the provisions to withdraw judicial works from the CJI even before his impeachment when his misconduct is gravest.
3. Duty of all Judges, Advocates and citizen to work for protection of Honest and upright Judges and also to protect and strengthen the Justice delivery system.
4. Duty of Advocates and citizen as per Art. 51 (A0 of the Constitution and also as per Bar Council of India Rules to take steps to ensure that the judicial institution works within the four corners of law and if any Judge acts contrary to law or if there is any malpractices going on then to expose it and work for its remedial measures.
5. Right of every citizen to have clean and incorruptible judicial system and to have impartial, fair and judicious Judges. The level of understanding of CJI or his tendency to act against the mandates of law and damage the institution is having serious impact on the crores of litigant and it will undermine the respect for Courts of law.
6. As per our constitutional set up the Judges of High Court are given a considerable independence, which is must for the smooth & proper functioning of entire judicial system.
7. Contempt of law laid down by three Judge Bench in the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi Vs. The Hon’ble Chief Justice S. Teja Singh 1954 SCR 454, by Ld. Chief Justice of India Sh. D.Y. Chandrachud & Sh. Justice P. S. Narasimha.
8. Contempt of Supreme Court’s direction in the case of Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2004) 5 SCC 1, by not following the rules of practice of showing regards and respecting dignity of the High Court and using polite words showing restraint and sobriety. The Ld. CJI used the impolite words like directions to Chief Justice of High Court.
9. Contempt of its own court by the bench of the Ld. CJI Sh. D.Y. Chandrachud by acting against the binding precedents of the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘K’, A Judicial Officer, In re, (2001) 3 SCC 54, Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 6 SCC 491, etc , and passing adverse order of withdrawing the case from Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay , without hearing him , which is having effect of creating doubt on the integrity of Hon’ble Justice Gangopadhyay.
10. As being Judge of Court of Record and paterfamilias the head of the Indian Judiciary the Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud & also the brother Judge Sh. P.S. Narashimha are duty bound to correct the above said mistake and tender public apology to the nation and also to Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and to Hon’ble Justice Abhijit Gagopadhyay.
11. Attempt to demoralize the High Court Judge by conducting his enquiry through Registrar General of the High Court by passing a judicial order, which is against the constitution and also against the procedure laid down by the Full Court under ‘In-House- procedure’ as being confidential as ruled in Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar General (2015) 4 SCC 91 & Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2003) 5 SCC 494
12. Procedure and practice laid down by the Supreme Court of calling reply affidavit from the concerned Judge of the High Court through Chief Justice in a case related with recusal or serious adverse allegations against the said Judge.
13. The ex facie act of Ld. CJI D. Y. Chandrachud in dishonestly criticizing Supreme Court Judge Sh. Justice G. S. Singhavi by putting his name in the order proves that CJI D. Y. Chandrachud is in habit of violating the fundamental rights of the Judges of Supreme Court and High Court by misusing the power and in breach of principles of natural justice and binding precedents. This is a ground for immediate appropriate action as per law. 14. As per law laid down by the Constitution Bench, the Judge acting contrary to law and allowing outside factors to affect his decision will be guilty of breach of oath and unfit to continue on the post of any public office and certainly on the post of a Judge. He has to resign himself to save the image of judiciary being damaged further.
15. That there are various other complaints filed by various people including a detailed complaint by Sh. Rashid Khan Pathan, President, Supreme Court & High Court Litigants Association where the details of serious offences under IPC and contempt committed by the Ld. CJI Shri. D.Y. Chandrachud are given with sound proofs and relevant binding precedents. It ex-facie proves the level of damage being caused to the entire judicial system because of Ld. Shri. D Y Chandrachud.”
You can download the copy of letter Here