“Differential treatment, different gown should go”:Indira Jaising after intervenor goes on a rant (again)

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising argued that differential treatment meted out by the Bench to seniors and juniors should be stopped, and that the senior gown should be done away with..The former ASG made these submissions before the Supreme Court the past Friday, after intervenor advocate Mathews J Nedumpara went on a rant against judges for “ill-treating advocates” without gown..When the hearing began, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who is the amicus curiae in the case, submitted his findings. He said that he had prepared the report after a meeting with Senior Advocates, and taking into account the opinions of the junior members of the Bar..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising then said that the report is a “good” and “fair” one but said that she wished to make some additions to it and prayed that the matter be adjourned so that she can file a reply..Subsequently, the Court gave Nedumpara the opportunity to speak..Nedumpara, who is infamous for intervening in matters pertaining to judicial appointments and speaking out of turn during such hearings, then went on a rant against the Bench..“Courts do not hear lawyers other than Seniors. It is unfair and unjust. Ten percent of the lawyers have monopolised the profession. They have the money and the power and courts listen only to them. Junior lawyers are ill-treated by judges. .I have been at the Bar for 30 years and have been ill –treated on numerous occasions even by this court. This system of Senior Advocates should be put to an end.”.He also said that this case is not a public interest litigation since PILs are moved on behalf of people who are financially or otherwise incapable of approaching the courts, and lawyers, on whose behalf Jaising has filed the petition, cannot be considered as falling in that category..Jaising then proceeded to reply that she had “consulted a wide cross-section of lawyers” before filing the PIL. She then advocated for an end to differential treatment and different attire for Seniors..“I also consulted Fali Nariman who said that seniority should be based on the date of enrolment alone. If you think that the Senior system should continue, then the differential treatment to juniors should stop. There should be no separate gowns for Seniors.”.The Court then gave the parties six weeks to file their replies to AG’s report and adjourned the case..It will now be taken up in January 2016.