A couple of days before Chief Justice of India UU Lalit named Justice DY Chandrachud as his successor, a complaint letter was sent to the President of India accusing Justice Chandrachud of misuse of office. The Bar Council of India (BCI) was quick to back Justice Chandrachud and condemned the attempts made by “some people with vested interests” to malign the image of the soon-to-be Chief Justice of India.
What was the complaint?
A person going by the name RK Pathan, claiming to be the head of the Supreme Court and High Court Litigants Association of India, filed a complaint before the President of India, accusing Justice Chandrachud of passing an order that apparently favoured his lawyer son’s client. The particular case that Pathan is referring to here is the one where Justice Chandrachud’s son, Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud appeared in a case for a person named Sagar Surywanshi, who was allegedly the mastermind behind a crime.
"On 29.11.2021 the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of accused Justice DY Chandrachud. Then as a part of a pre-planned conspiracy, Justice DY Chandrachud without hearing the Counsel for the state and without issuing any notice to the other parties straightaway passed a blatantly illegal order regarding a non-existent application allegedly filed by the state. This was done to serve the ulterior purposes of his son and other syndicates of the mastermind extortionist accused Sagar Suryawanshi,” Pathan said in his complaint.
The complainant said that Justice Chandrachud was disqualified to hear any case which his son was appearing for and also went on to add, “But then also he heard the matter and passed the order beneficial to his son's client. This is an offence under sections 166, 219, 409, 120(B), 34 & 52, etc., of the Indian Penal Code." Pathan, in his letter, also recommended Chief Justice UU Lalit not to recommend the name of Justice Chandrachud as his successor.
Bar Council of India condemns the complaint
With the news of Pathan’s letter breaking out, the Bar Council of India on October 8 condemned the complaint and said, “It is nothing but a scurrilous and malicious attempt to interfere with the functioning of Judiciary and the administration of Justice.” The Council also made a reference to the timing of the letter, which was released soon after the Union Law Minister had requested the CJI to name his successor, hinting that this was an intentional attempt aimed at shaming Justice Chandrachud.
While the complainant alleged that Justice Chandrachud heard the case in which his son appeared, the Bar Council clarified that the proceedings first took place at the Bombay High Court, which is where Justice Chandrachud’s son appeared. It was only later that the case was heard in the Supreme Court. “As per our clear information, the parties to the said proceedings before the Supreme Court were different from the parties before the Bombay High Court,” the council said.
Even then, the SC hearing was not regarding the merits of the case but with regard to the delay by the Bombay HC in hearing the petition. “All that the Supreme Court did was to request the Bombay High Court to consider the petition and if the exigencies of work do not permit the same, to consider the application for vacating the stay,” the council said.
The BCI went on to add that the order did not in any way show that Justice Chandrachud even knew that his son had appeared for the case before the Bombay HC. "This long letter is nothing, but a device to gain cheap popularity. This man has also defamed the litigants-mass of our country. This is also very sad. Such persons deserve strong penal and disciplinary action,” the council stated.
Meanwhile, the Bombay HC has issued a contempt notice against Pathan for making scurrilous and scandalous allegations against a sitting judge of the HC.