The Supreme Court today schooled two lawyers and asked them to “come with a sense of responsibility” when they file petitions before the country’s highest court.
Advocate Vishal Tiwari and Advocate Shashank Shekhar Jha had filed public interest litigations linked to violence in West Bengal’s Murshidabad during protests against the Waqf Amendment Act.
Disappointed with the averments in the petitions, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said lawyers should not file petitions “just to come in news”.
“The Supreme Court is a court of record. Posterity will see. You think it will be reported etc. But you have to be careful when filing pleadings or passing an order,” it said.
The court said it respects every member of the Bar and any averments can be raised provided lawyers “maintain decorum and dignity of the institution”. “Averments should be decent, respectful. “Article 32 plea must raise good questions of law with interesting legal material. The rest of the things we forget when we sit here,” the bench said.
Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees the right to constitutional remedies and enables individuals to approach the top court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Advocate Tiwari sought the court’s permission to withdraw his petition and file a fresh one. The court allowed him.
Mr Jha told the bench initially that he did not wish to change his petition. Justice Kant then asked how many years of experience he had and how many PILs he had filed.
“Have you learnt the art of pleadings from a senior?” he asked. The lawyer replied that he had been practising for seven years and had filed three-four PILs. Justice Kant then asked him how an Article 32 plea is drafted. The lawyer replied that Article 32 is invoked when fundamental rights are violated and said many people in Bengal had contacted him. Justice Kant asked him where these people were.
“I will include them. They got in touch yesterday, many migrated to other states,” the lawyer replied. The bench grilled him further and asked what the basis of his information on migration was. The lawyer replied that his information was based on media reports.
The court then flagged some expressions in his petitions and asked if this is the “standard of decency” he must follow. The court said the lawyer is stressing a failure of the law and order situation in Bengal and his petitions must detail the reasons to contain such failure and what measures can be taken. “Not like this, how you have done… You are making allegations against A and B individuals who are not before us,” the court said. The lawyer persisted, “They are government functionaries.” The bench replied, “Allegation against anyone, you need to implead them. Can we accept those allegations behind those persons?”
The lawyer then said he would make amendments to his petition.
“That’s why we said you are in great hurry. Yes, justice to the voiceless, is good, but do so in a proper manner. Not like this,” the court said, allowing Mr Jha to withdraw his petition.
