Ram Jethmalani creates news for calling judges Sycophants and Biased
News

Ram Jethmalani creates news for calling judges Sycophants and Biased

Bar & Bench

Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani is in the news again. This time Jethmalani is in the midst of controversy for calling Judges Sycophants at a lawyer’s conference and in another instance for questioning the impartiality of a Supreme Court judge and calling him ‘biased’.

Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani is in the news again. This time Jethmalani is in the midst of controversy for calling Judges Sycophants at a lawyer’s conference and in another instance for questioning the impartiality of a Supreme Court judge and calling him ‘biased’.

Jethmalani is of the opinion that he is someone who thinks independently, who has not mortgaged his soul or intelligence to anybody.

Recently, while speaking at the state lawyer’s conference on the occasion of Law day organized by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, he made a remark saying judiciary is responsible for adjournments, reports TOI.

He criticized judges saying “Why do you (judge) adjourn when they (lawyers) ask for it? You also have become sycophants to maintain relations”.

Justice Majmudar with an anguish rebuking the statement made by Jethmalani declined to grant a four – week adjournment stating, “We will go strictly by the law. No more adjournments will be given”. The Court also rapped the bar council. “It is for the bar council to consider about the kind of people they invite to deliver lectures,” said Justice Majmudar.

“Lawyers are making public statements which affect the image of the judiciary. Senior advocates are tarnishing the image of judges by saying such things in public. It affects the public profile of the whole institution” said the judge.

The Judge also added “There should be some restraint (on lawyers making statements). From new entrants in the profession to advocates who are in the verge of retirement, everyone is indulging in it.”

The judge said that adjournments are given on a case by case basis. “Government is not ready with affidavits when cases are called out. We do not want the state to suffer and sometimes grant adjournments,” said Justice Majmudar. The judges took exception to the statement that senior counsels use their influence in seeking adjournments. “We go strictly by the law. We hope wiser counsel prevails,” said the judge.

Yesterday, Ram Jethmalani lighted another spark and further triggered the judiciary in Sohrabuddin encounter case for making “baseless allegations” against Justice Tarun Chatterjee, an Apex court judge.

He alleged that Justice Tarun Chatterjee, who was on the bench that ordered CBI probe into the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh alleged encounter was “biased”, since the Judge himself was an accused in the Ghaziabad provident fund scam, also investigated by the CBI.

The Centre through Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising fired back stating, “I demand the court to initiate suo motu contempt not only on against Shah but also the advocates who have drafted and settled the said application and has affixed his signature with the noting ‘settled by Ram Jethmalani, Senior Advocate and drawn and filed by Anish Kumar Gupta,” while arguing before a bench consisting of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana P Desai.

Jaising further added “Both Shah and Jethmalani, who settled the application seeking recall of the January 12 order, alleged a conspiracy not only between the Centre and the CBI but a tripartite conspiracy between the Centre, the CBI and by innuendo the Supreme Court,” reports TOI.

Jethmalani in turn termed her arguments “Hysterical” and said “I will not withdraw the allegations. If anyone has committed contempt, it was me. For, I argued the matter before the Court.”

In blemish ASG Jaising rebutted saying, “Mr Jethmalani, for you, all arguments by women advocates are hysterical, not the men. I have mentioned your name for initiation of contempt proceedings; let us see the explanation once the notices for contempt are issued.”

She maintained that the allegation of bias against the Judge had no evidence and was nothing but a “self-serving smokescreen” aimed to subvert the cause of justice.

From the recent heated atmosphere amidst the members of judiciary caused through his remarks, this legal personality is truly known for being surrounded by controversies.

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com