PremiumThe Supreme Court on Friday clarified it has not restrained the high courts from passing orders to combat the coronavirus crisis, after several senior advocates criticized the court’s decision to intervene in pandemic-related cases pending before high courts
The Supreme Court on Friday clarified it has not restrained the high courts from passing orders to combat the coronavirus crisis, after several senior advocates criticized the court’s decision to intervene in pandemic-related cases pending before high courts.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) S.A. Bobde, said the apex court never stopped the high courts from taking up covid-related matters when it initiated public interest litigation on its own on Thursday and asked the Centre to present before it a national plan to deal with the crisis that has now made India the ground zero of the global pandemic.
Premium 
Premium The clarification came after several senior lawyers criticized Justice Bobde’s bench taking suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance of the crisis on the eve of the chief justice’s retirement and naming senior advocate Harish Salve as amicus curiae while Salve represented Vedanta, which wanted its plant in Tamil Nadu’s Thoothukudi to reopen for producing oxygen.
On Friday, Salve opted to withdraw as amicus, citing adverse comments made by some lawyers against his “friendship" with justice Bobde and a possible conflict of interest. “It is the most sensitive case this court will look into. I don’t want this case to be decided under the shadow that I knew CJI from school and college and allegations being made or there is a conflict of interest," he said.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, requested Salve not to succumb to “pressure" and stay on, but Salve stuck to his decision. Mehta also asked for an adjournment till next week to present the national plan on availability and distribution of essential supplies and services, saying he would not want justice Bobde’s last day in office to get mired in any controversy.
Subsequently, the CJI accepted Salve’s withdrawal, observing: “We were also pained at reading what some senior advocates had to say. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. In future, we will have to appoint someone as amicus only when we don’t know that person. But we will honour your sentiments and allow you to recuse."
The bench, which included justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat, expressed its displeasure at “some senior lawyers" questioning the suo motu proceedings.
High courts across the country have kept the Centre as well as states on their toes regarding supply of essential medicines, medical oxygen and hospital beds.
Premium Premium Justice Rao said: “Even before the order was passed, motives were imputed that we were going to stop the high courts. Some senior advocates are destroying the institution."
The judge then turned to senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who was one of the lawyers questioning the intervention of the Supreme Court and asked: “You have imputed motives to us without reading the order. Is there anything in our order to transfer the case? Is this how a senior advocate should speak? Without reading the order?"
Dave said: “No motives have been imputed, but we all thought your lordship was going to do it (transfer the case)...entire country thought like that. It was a genuine perception. My lordships have done this before. And there is still an indication in your order."
Intervening at this point, justice Bhat told Dave: “We never said a word and did not stop the high courts. We, in fact, asked the Centre to go to high courts and report to them. What kind of perception are you talking about?"
Click here to read the Mint ePaperMint is now on Telegram. Join Mint channel in your Telegram and stay updated with the latest business news.
