BACCHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been received by this Court from transfer from the Bench of His Lordship Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra. The transfer it appears is on account of his son having entered appearance in this case. It has come to my notice that a large number of matters are being transferred from the Board of His Lordship on account of Mr. Sachin Chopra, Advocate, having entered appearance. It also appears that Mr. Sachin Chopra is engaged to provide legal aid to the inmates of Tihar. In the present case, from the record I find that this appeal was initially marked to Mr. Rajesh Mahajan and subsequently to Ms. Sindhu Vishwakarama. This arrangement continued till November 10, 2004, when the matter was directed to be listed for final disposal in the month of March, 2005. On 13th September, 2005 this matter is directed to be transferred and thereafter Mr. Sachin Chopra's name appears in order sheet. I have already in my earlier order dealing with the same situation requested Mr. Sachin Chopra to desist from appearing in matters which, as per roster, are listed before His Lordship Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra. I have also requested him that propriety demands that kith and kins of Judges use great discretion to ensure that no cause for complaint or murmur is given. The aforesaid advice has obviously not been accepted. It has, thereforee, become necessary for me to dwell on the subject in a more detail.

(2.) THERE is no gainsaying that wards or kith and kins of Judges should avoid legal practice in the Court where a relative Judge has been appointed. However, if that be not possible, surely some discipline must prevail to ensure that their presence/practice in the Court does not cause any embarrassment to the judicial fraternity. It is in the propriety of things that wards of Judges take care to see that no untoward incident takes place as to tarnish the fair name of this institution which is otherwise being accused of son stroke and uncle syndrome. It is the Advocate that withdraws from a case and it should not be that the Judge should be obliged to withdraw from hearing the case. It is imperative that they do not enter appearance so as to remove a case from the roster of a Judge and/or do anything that would cause a ripple.

(3.) WHAT is also disturbing is the manner in which a statutory body like the Delhi Legal Services Authority should mark cases to wards of Judges. It is the duty of the Legal Services Authority to scout for talent and offer the best to the accused/under trial/convict. This is the solemn duty cast on this organisation. It must desist from concentrating matters into few hands. I am aware that this order of mine will ruffle feathers and raise fangs, yet it has become necessary in the situation that has been created. I, thereforee, direct the Delhi Legal Services Authority to withdraw all cases, which are listed before His Lordship Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra, from Mr. Sachin Chopra, Advocate and mark the same to some other Counsel. The present appeal be placed before His Lordship Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for appropriate order since Mr. Sachin Chopra, is no longer in this case.