Nothing personal, SC clarifies in Jaising’s plea to expunge adverse remarks in Loya Judgment

The Supreme Court yesterday disposed of the application filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking the expungement of certain disapproving remarks made by the Court in the Judge Loya judgment, against the petitioners and intervenors in the case..Indira Jaising had appeared for Admiral Laxminarayan Ramdas, a former Chief in the Indian Navy in the matter. She represented one among several petitioners seeking an independent probe into the death of trial judge BH Loya during the pendency of the Sohrabbudin fake encounter case..While dismissing this plea, the Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud had remarked, inter alia,.“The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors scandalises the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt…The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors is, as we have indicated, lacking bona fides and reveals a misuse of judicial process.”.Arguing for Jaising in her plea for the expungement of such remarks, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi submitted that she had no intention to make any submission that would denigrate or scandalise the judiciary..Further, he pointed out that the disapproving remarks made by the Court appeared to give the impression that all counsel before the Court had made the same submissions. However, Singhvi emphasised that this was not the case and that each of the arguing counsel had made distinct submissions..The plea for expungement was opposed by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state of Maharashtra, who argued that each of the submissions attributed to Jaising was in fact urged by her in the course of the proceedings..Rohatgi also raised an objection to a prayer made in Jaising’s plea which sought for the Court to look into whether due consent was obtained before the transfer of Judge JT Utpat during the Sohrabbuddin case. This, Rohatgi submitted, indicated that Jaising’s plea was only aimed to revive a controversy which has been settled by the Court..Whereas Singhvi gave up this prayer during the course of his rejoinder, the Court noted,.“It would be necessary to record Mr Rohatgi’s submission that if, as submitted by Dr Singhvi, the inclusion of prayer clause (c) was inadvertent, the statement that the prayer is being given up ought to have been made before submissions commenced, prior to an objection being raised on his behalf. “.Ultimately, the Court did not allow the plea for expungement of its remarks. However, the Bench has clarified that none of their remarks in the Loya Judgment were intended to personally refer to any person, including Indira Jaising. The Court held,.“The application proceeds on the basis that the observations which were made in regard to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors attach to the applicant personally. In paragraphs 76 and 78, this Court has adverted to “the conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors” (emphasis supplied). .If the applicant identifies with the intervenor, that is a matter of perception for counsel. The observations of the Court advert to the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors. The findings of this Court are based on what was argued during the course of the hearing..The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly disposed of.“.Read the Order: