The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud in the case observed and has clarified the bail application of Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain was assigned to a bench led by Justice Bela Trivedi since Justice AS Bopanna was not available due to health reasons.
The objection was raised by Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi with regards to the listing of Jain’s petition, wherein it is stated that the matter was earlier heard by Justice Bopanna’s bench.
The bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud clarified the situations. Thus, he disclosed a communication from the office of Justice Bopanna, explaining that due to medical reasons, he had not resumed duties after the Diwali vacations.
CJI also stated that Justice Bopanna had requested that all matters he had heard be kept as ‘de-part heard.’ Consequently, the said case was assigned to Justice Trivedi, who was the other member of the bench when Justice Bopanna heard the matter last.
The bench of CJI Chandrachud while addressing the allegations stated that it is very easy to fling allegations and letters. There being the communication from the office of Justice Bopanna. Due to medical reasons, he did not resume duties after Diwali. He stated that all matters which were heard by him should be kept as de-part heard.
Therefore, the said matter was assigned to Justice Trivedi who had last heard the matter and the reason why Justice Trivedi has to hear the matter is because there is an application for an extension of interim bail…I thought I’ll clarify it…find it surprising for any member of bar to say that I want this particular judge.
It has been added by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that he believed that such letters should be ignored and not be dignified with a response.
He stated that Dr Singhvi would never do that but the only thing I will say is that the only way to deal with such malicious letters is by ignoring them. Do not dignify them.
Further, it has been written by the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Director to the Supreme Court Registry wherein it objected to the listing of an appeal before Justice Trivedi’s bench on the ground that the matter was previously heard by Justice Aniruddha Bose’s bench.
The court in the case observed that last week, Advocate Prashant Bhushan wrote to the Supreme Court registry wherein it alleged irregularities in the listing of UAPA pleas before the bench of Justice Trivedi’s and the common ground of objection taken in these instances is that as per the SC rules, when a bench combination changes, the matter should follow the bench of the senior judge of that bench.