Former CJI UU Lalit explains how, why petition against GN Saibaba acquittal came to be listed on Saturday

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit on Sunday said that there was nothing unusual about the listing of GN Saibaba case before the Supreme Court on October 15, a Saturday. .The Supreme Court usually does not hear cases on Saturdays but the appeal filed by State of Maharashtra against acquittal of GN Saibaba in a Maoist link case was heard on an urgent basis on a Saturday.In an interview to NDTV, Justice Lalit said that he was not aware of the adverse remarks made by Justice DY Chandrachud on October 14, Friday against listing of the case on Saturday."I was not aware because the registry officials simply came to me and said that there is a bench to be formed," said Justice Lalit.He also said that Justice Chandrachud, who had made oral remarks on October 14 against listing the case on Saturday, never said anything about that when then CJI Lalit asked whether he would be part of the Saturday bench."No, he did not say that. In fact, I asked him will he be part of the bench on Saturday. He said he had certain commitments," Justice Lalit said..GN Saibaba, accused in a Maoist case, was acquitted by the Bombay High Court on October 14, Friday.The State of Maharashtra had then rushed to the Supreme Court the very same day and matter was listed for Saturday, October 15 after an urgent mentioning was made on Friday evening by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta seeking listing of the case on priority.The mentioning was made before Justice DY Chandrachud since CJI Lalit had already risen for the day.Justice Chandrachud during the hearing had said that he cannot pass directions to list the matter on Saturday.The bench also comprising Justice Hima Kohli, nevertheless, recorded the following in its order of Friday."The Solicitor General states that he will move an application before the Registry for obtaining administrative directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice for listing of the Special Leave Petition tomorrow (15.10.2022)."Subsequently, a bench Justices MR Shah and Bela Trivedi was constituted by then CJI Lalit to sit on Saturday. That bench then heard the matter on Saturday before suspending the Bombay High Court verdict..This action of listing the case on priority invited a lot criticism with many lampooning then CJI Lalit for the same."Only in rarest of cases sentences (after conviction) are suspended but I have never heard acquittal being suspended on a special Saturday hearing. The institution has to be concerned about itself and it is disturbing," Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal said at a public event."The issue is with master of roster. Most cases dealing with government go to a particular judge. That is not automatically assigned. So why is that happening," he added..Below is the complete version of CJI Lalit as narrated to Sreenivasan Jain. .CJI Lalit: Matter was mentioned. That day Friday was the last working day of Justice Hemant Gupta. So the normal convention is the retiring judge sits with the Chief Justice of India. So he was sitting with me. We rose at 1 pm.So because CJI's bench was not available the matter got mentioned before judge no. 2, i.e. Justice DY Chandrachud. It was around 3.40 or 3.45 that the matter got mentioned.The prayer was of course for stay. This I got to know after everything. The request was made (before Justice Chandrachud) that let there be a bench on Saturday. The order records this submission - that this is the submission. Because the farewell by the Bar for the retiring judge is at 4.30, I was about to leave for that. That is when the registry officials came to me and said, 'Sir there has been an order passed which contemplates forming a bench on Saturday'. Sreenivasan Jain: But Justice Chandrachud from what I understand had refused. He had refused to say that...CJI Lalit: But how do I know? How do I know at that point?Sreenivasan Jain: You were not aware?CJI Lalit: I was not aware because the registry officials simply came to me (and said) that there is a bench to be formed. So I said, 'Very well I will be meeting all the judges now at the farewell'.So I leave for the farewell. The first judge that I wish to contact is Justice Chandrachud himself. I ask him 'Is there an order that you have passed?'He said 'yes'.Then I asked will he be part of that bench - that special bench to be formed on Saturday.He had some (other) commitments so he said during the major part of the day he is not free.There are three other judges who are standing there close by - Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice BR Gavai and Justice Ravindra Bhat. So I ask each one of them - 'will you be part of the special bench'. Justice Rastogi again had some prior commitments. Justice Gavai had prior commitments. So, therefore, both of them refused. Then I asked Justice Ravindra Bhat 'will you be there'. He said, 'I have some judgment commitments and I need to finish them. So in case you don't get anybody, then I am certainly willing' as a default arrangement. So I turn to other judges who were standing close by. One of them is Justice Surya Kant. I ask him. He said no (since) he had some (other) commitment. Next to him was Justice Bela Trivedi. So I asked her and she said yes. Then the next man I bump into is Justice MR Shah. So I asked him and he said yes.That is how two of them got together to form a bench. Neither of us - neither Justice MR Shah nor Justice Bela Trivedi nor me - were aware as to what exactly had happened in the court..Sreenivasan Jain: But when you met Justice Chandrachud, did he not mention the fact that he had actually said no to a speedy request. He said what is the hurry, it can be heard (later).CJI Lalit: No, he did not say that. In fact, I asked him will you be part of the bench on Saturday. He said he has certain commitments.Sreenivasan Jain: I see. Were you aware of what the matter was? What was the issue that was being soughtCJI Lalit: The paperbook does not come to CJI. Only the order came before me. The order has the name "So and so v. Saibaba.But what the context was what kind of matter, what kind of prayer (I was not aware). So this is how bench got formed on a Saturday. And I don't think, there is anything unusual in that.Because, of two things. As CJI, my job is to make the bench available if the occasion demands that.In the first case (case on Bangalore Idgah issue which was similarly heard on urgent basis), the occasion demanded it because next day was Ganesh Chaturthi. I could not have listed the matter next day. Therefore, it had to be done at 5'clock that day itself.Similarly here (GN Saibaba case), if the order had actually recorded the submission that if the urgency is there, then Saturday can be convened. Therefore, the order said that. Therefore, I convened the bench.What happens before the bench is a completely different issue..Sreenivasan Jain: I see. This is interesting because at times some of this criticisim that judges or Supreme Court is acting in a motivated or serving he interest of political executive...CJI Lalit: Not at all.Sreenivasan Jain: (Such criticism) can be unfair as well.CJI Lalit: Absolutely unfair. These are five or five judges. All these conversations happened perhaps in the earshot of all office bearers of Supreme Court Bar Association. We were all standing together..[Read October 14 order].[Read October 15 order]