The Delhi High Court today dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify senior advocate Fali S Nariman from appearing before the Supreme Court..The petition was filed by Mathews J Nedumpara, Rohini M Amin, AC Philip and Amritpal Singh Khalsa. .The matter was listed for hearing before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameshwar Rao..It was the petitioners’ stance that Fali S Nariman should not be allowed to practice before the Supreme Court as his son, Justice Rohinton Nariman is a sitting Judge there..Stating that the judiciary today is facing the greatest of challenges, the petition claims,.“..the living legend, Shri Fali S. Nariman, whom the entire legal fraternity, nay, the whole world, hold in the highest of esteem, owe and admiration, continues to practice in the Supreme Court even after his illustrious son, Hon’ble Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, is elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court, is a literal shock to all those who live, adore and respect him; so too his illustrious son who grace the august office of the Judge of the Supreme Court.”.Relying on the concept nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, Nedumpara argued in favour of “impartial and independent dispensation of justice”. . “The scheme of Justice should be unbiased and it must manifestly appear so“, Nedumpara said..It was, therefore, further argued that Explanation to Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 which deals with ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette‘, must be read to mean ‘the entire Court‘, and not the particular Court where the relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge..Dismissing the Petition, Justice Menon said that the Court did not have the power to amend or change an existing Rule..“The explanation and the meaning of the word “Court” clearly stipulate that it does not mean the entire Court but only refers to a particular Court where relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge…The Rule has been formulated by the legislative authorities and we cannot interpret the Rule based on the concept canvassed before us in the manner as submitted by the learned petitioner present before us… If the provisions of Rule 6 and the explanation contained thereto as appearing in the statutory rules are taken note of, it clearly explains the ambit and import of the word “Court” used therein and if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, we would be re-writing the statute in a manner which would run contrary to the legislative intent and this, in our considered view, is not permissible in law. “, the order reads..The petition also sought an appropriate direction to the Collegium Members of the Supreme Court and the Government of India to take appropriate steps to secure transfer of the Judges of High Courts, where their kith and kin practice as lawyers..Read the order:
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a petition seeking to disqualify senior advocate Fali S Nariman from appearing before the Supreme Court..The petition was filed by Mathews J Nedumpara, Rohini M Amin, AC Philip and Amritpal Singh Khalsa. .The matter was listed for hearing before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice V Kameshwar Rao..It was the petitioners’ stance that Fali S Nariman should not be allowed to practice before the Supreme Court as his son, Justice Rohinton Nariman is a sitting Judge there..Stating that the judiciary today is facing the greatest of challenges, the petition claims,.“..the living legend, Shri Fali S. Nariman, whom the entire legal fraternity, nay, the whole world, hold in the highest of esteem, owe and admiration, continues to practice in the Supreme Court even after his illustrious son, Hon’ble Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, is elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court, is a literal shock to all those who live, adore and respect him; so too his illustrious son who grace the august office of the Judge of the Supreme Court.”.Relying on the concept nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, Nedumpara argued in favour of “impartial and independent dispensation of justice”. . “The scheme of Justice should be unbiased and it must manifestly appear so“, Nedumpara said..It was, therefore, further argued that Explanation to Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 which deals with ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette‘, must be read to mean ‘the entire Court‘, and not the particular Court where the relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge..Dismissing the Petition, Justice Menon said that the Court did not have the power to amend or change an existing Rule..“The explanation and the meaning of the word “Court” clearly stipulate that it does not mean the entire Court but only refers to a particular Court where relative of a lawyer is a Presiding Judge…The Rule has been formulated by the legislative authorities and we cannot interpret the Rule based on the concept canvassed before us in the manner as submitted by the learned petitioner present before us… If the provisions of Rule 6 and the explanation contained thereto as appearing in the statutory rules are taken note of, it clearly explains the ambit and import of the word “Court” used therein and if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, we would be re-writing the statute in a manner which would run contrary to the legislative intent and this, in our considered view, is not permissible in law. “, the order reads..The petition also sought an appropriate direction to the Collegium Members of the Supreme Court and the Government of India to take appropriate steps to secure transfer of the Judges of High Courts, where their kith and kin practice as lawyers..Read the order:
