TEHSEEN POONAWALLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms Indira Jaising has moved a Miscellaneous Application seeking the following reliefs :

(2.) Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that whatever be the conduct of the other learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners and intervenors before this Court, Ms Jaising has had no intention to make any submission that would denigrate or scandalise the judiciary. It was urged that in making the submission about the Administrative Committee of the Bombay High Court she has not scandalised the judiciary and that neither the written submissions nor the oral submissions would amount to scandalising the process of the Court. Dr Singhvi urged that the observations contained in paragraphs 74, 75, 76 and 78 of the judgment (extracted in prayer clause (a) above) would appear to give the impression that all counsel before the Court had made the same submission, though each of the arguing counsel had urged distinct submissions. It has been submitted that Ms Jaising has a standing of over five decades at the Bar and that her track record would indicate anything but a desire to denigrate the judiciary.

(3.) Mr Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra opposed the application. Learned counsel submitted that each one of the submissions attributed to Ms Jaising was in fact urged by her in the course of the proceedings. Mr Rohatgi drew the attention of the Court to prayer clause (c) of the Miscellaneous Application by which the records of the meeting of the Administrative Committee of the High Court dated 25 June 2014 are sought to be summoned to ascertain the reasons for the transfer of Judge Utpat, and to ascertain whether the consent of this Court was obtained (and whether it was kept informed of his proposed transfer). Mr Rohatgi submitted that prayer (c) is indicative of the fact that the Miscellaneous Application has not been filed to pursue her own interest as counsel practicing before this Court but to revive the controversy which has been settled by the judgment of this Court.