The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the advocates that they had the liberty to criticise anybody under the Sun but it had to go by the rules so far as the listing of the cases was concerned.
The matter pertained to the cases connected with the cash-for-jobs scam in Tamil Nadu.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud defended the court's registry after it was pointed out that the matter was listed before another bench, in violation of the rules.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that in September last year, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer (since retired) and V Ramasubramanian had restored the criminal charges against DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, setting aside the Madras High Court judgment.
He said that the court further directed that in the remaining similar cases, the police should move for vacating the stay order granted by the high court.
Instead of doing that, the police agreed before the high court for a de-novo investigation, in a relief to the accused, and it was allowed, and petitions have been filed in the apex court challenging it.
At this, senior advocates Dushyant Dave and Kapil Sibal complained regarding the listing of the case and objected to the registry putting one case before another bench, when the connected matters are being heard by a different bench.
Dave said the registry has strict rules that any matter which arises from the same judgment must come to the same court, but these matters are being heard by some other court.
"Let me look at it in the evening. I don't have the papers with me", the CJI told Dave who pressed that the registry must follow the rules.
On this, the Chief Justice replied “you have the liberty to criticise everybody under the Sun. We as judges of this court have to follow some discipline. And I am following it by looking into the matter and will assign a bench”.
Clarifying that he has the utmost respect for the judiciary and “I myself am a judge's son. My criticism is objective, not subjective”.
The Chief Justice said, “Mr Dave, your assessment that your criticism is objective may itself be subjective".
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that it is the prerogative of the master of the roster to assign a bench and added, "whatever your lordships decide, we have to accept".
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with advocate Balaji Srinivasan, for the victims of the scam submitted that the matter should have gone before the bench of Justice Ramasubramanian, since it arises from his judgment, but it went before Justice Krishan Murari’s bench. They also said the accused cannot seek a hearing before a particular bench.