“Won’t hear you in person because you might turn emotional” – CJI Lodha to party in person; Adjourns PIL seeking de-registration of Congress party

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the cancellation of the registration of the Indian National Congress party for its alleged role in the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984. The PIL, which has been filed by one Malkiat Singh Bajwa (Petitioner), also seeks a withdrawal of the Bharat Ratna awarded to Rajiv Gandhi..The matter was listed before the Chief Justice’s (CJI) court today. Bajwa appeared in person before the Bench which also comprised of Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Kurian Joseph. Justice Lodha told the Petitioner that they will not entertain him “in person” and he would have to be represented by an advocate considering the nature of the subject matter involved..“You will become emotional and won’t be able to argue on law…. We have gone through your petition. The court can decide cases only based on law and not emotions”, said the CJI..Though Bajwa insisted that he had all the necessary facts and was capable of presenting the case, Justice Lodha refused..The conversation took place largely in Hindi which prompted Justice Kurian Joseph to ask whether he could speak in English. When the Petitioner answered in the negative, Justice Nariman butted in and said that his brother judge will not be able to follow Hindi..When a lawyer informed Bajwa that he could avail the services of the Legal Services Committee, Justice Lodha proceeded to inquire about his occupation and salary. On learning that he would not be eligible for legal aid, the CJI said that they would either dismiss the petition or grant the Petitioner the liberty to engage a lawyer. Bajwa then asked the Court to adjourn the matter for one month by which time he would decide..The Court acceded to the Petitioner’s request while recording in its order that “having regard to the subject matter involved, we decline the Petitioner’s request to argue in person.”.As per Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it is the discretion of the court to permit a litigant to argue in person and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.