Plea in SC to recall Dushyant Dave's Senior Advocate designation for having 'smeared the image of SC' while arguing for Prashant Bhushan

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave's arguments in the suo motu contempt case against Advocate Prashant Bhushan has resulted in a plea against him before the Supreme Court urging the Court to direct the recall of his senior advocate designation as Dave contending that "smeared the image of the Supreme Court." .Petitioner Sharad Datta Yadav has moved the plea under Article 32 read with Article 14 of the Constitution. .Yadav relies on excerpts of Court hearings from from Bar & Bench and other legal news portals to contend that, .".... except for aggrandisement of self-righteousness and anointing himself as custodian of rectitude and guardian to the conduct of the Supreme Court, nothing explains the brashness of Dave to demolish the dignity of Supreme Court and create judicial/social disorderliness impacting the fundamental rights of the petitioner.".On August 5, Supreme Court had reserved its order in the suo motu contempt case initiated against Advocate Prashant Bhushan for allegedly bringing disrepute to the institution through two of his tweets..Dave sought to argue that Bhushan's criticism in his tweets of individual Chief Justices was in relation to those individuals alone and when criticism is voiced against the Apex Court, they cannot be silenced. Dave cited the January 2018 press conference of judges as an example where the criticism against the members of the judiciary had been made public..Dave also raised the case concerning the sexual harassment allegations made against former Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi. He pointed out that these allegations were made by a staffer. There were counter allegations made against the staffer earlier which have now been dropped and she has been reinstated into service now, Dave pointed out..Yadav in his plea before the Supreme Court states that an "apparent double standard" is adopted by Dave in alluding former CJI Gogoi of being a judge in his own cause, while wilfully suppressing the facts concerning another contempt case, i.e. a complaint regarding jurisdiction in contempt proceedings by Advocate Vijay Kurle against Justices RF Nariman and Vineet Saran. ."Sr Advocate Dave (is) acting as proxy nay canvassing for Honb’le Justice Nariman to be assigned of politically sensitive cases."Sharad Yadav in his plea.Yadav contends that while Dave has alluded to CJI Gogoi being a judge in his own case, he ignores that "that's exactly what Hon'ble Justices Rohinton Nariman & Vineet Saran did in the complaint by Adv Vijay Kurle." Yadav states in his plea, "the selective amnesia on part Dave is perplexing.".The plea further avers that Dave's submissions acquire "dangerous proportions virtually acting as a proxy to Justice Nariman in questioning as to why Justice Nariman is left out of politically sensitive cases" and that the petitioner understands that the prerogative rests with the CJI. He adds that the interest Advocate Dave has in getting sensitive cases assigned to Justice Nariman's bench is inexplicable..(Read related stories)."No one can claim infallibility, including judges", Dave argues as Supreme Court reserves order in contempt case against Prashant Bhushan.Contempt case against Prashant Bhushan: Vijay Kurle files intervention plea in SC citing misplaced reliance on contempt ruling against him.Prashant Bhushan invokes Section 17(5) of Contempt of Courts Act, seeks liberty to lead evidence if SC decides to proceed against him.[BREAKING] Twitter "Withholds" Advocate Prashant Bhushan's Tweets after Suo Motu Contempt Notice by Supreme Court.BREAKING: Supreme Court initiates suo motu Contempt of Court proceedings against Prashant Bhushan and Twitter India