Back
Supreme Court Defends Amicus Raju Ramachandran, Rejects Odisha AG's Comment on Bias in DGP Case
In a tense courtroom exchange that underscored the sanctity of the 's role, the on Thursday came to the defence of after suggested that the amicus was arguing as if he represented the petitioner. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, firmly rejected the allegation, with Justice Bagchi noting that the amicus was not on trial and the court would not take note of such comments.
The incident occurred during the hearing of pleas challenging the 's process for appointing the Director General of Police (DGP), which the petitioners allege violated the Supreme Court's directions in the landmark case. The case, which has been pending for decades, established binding guidelines for police reforms, including the requirement for a transparent and merit-based selection of DGPs.
Background: The Prakash Singh Case and DGP Appointments
The Prakash Singh case arose from a filed by former police officers seeking structural reforms in the Indian police force. In , the Supreme Court issued a series of directions, including that the DGP must be appointed from among the three senior-most officers of the state's police cadre, through a transparent process overseen by the . The 's recent appointment of a DGP came under scrutiny, with petitioners alleging that the selection bypassed these mandated safeguards.
As the court examined the affidavits and counter-affidavits, it appointed as to assist it in understanding the and legal nuances. The amicus is expected to provide independent, unbiased assistance to the court, free from any party's influence.
The Heated Exchange
During the hearing,
made a remark that immediately drew sharp reaction. He said,
"He is presenting as if he's representing [petitioner]... the very first day, without looking at the brief he makes..."
The comment suggested that the amicus had pre-judged the matter or was acting as an advocate for the petitioners.
, visibly agitated, demanded that the Advocate General withdraw the statement.
"I seek your lordships' protection. I will withdraw from this case if such an allegation by an Advocate General is allowed to be on record. In my 50 years of practice, I have not been told that I have been unfair in this court. I will not accept this. The Advocate General has to withdraw this comment,"
he submitted.
The bench immediately intervened. Chief Justice Surya Kant stated that the court would not accept any allegation against the amicus. Justice Joymalya Bagchi added that the bench does not take note of such comments, effectively disregarding the AG's remark. However, Mr. Ramachandran expressed deep anguish, saying,
"I have assisted this court as amicus in many cases. This can't be allowed to pass... in the most sensitive cases, nobody has said such a thing."
A Pattern of Tensions in Court
The incident followed a similar confrontation the previous day, when objected to 's use of the word "Naxalite" during the hearing of the Vande Mataram case filed by Carnatic musician TM Krishna. In that instance, too, Justice Bagchi remarked that the bench does not take note of such comments. The recurrence of such exchanges highlights a growing sensitivity among senior counsel about remarks that may impugn their professional integrity.
Defence from the Bar
The amicus received strong support from within the courtroom.
, appearing for the
, voiced his appreciation for Mr. Ramachandran, describing him as
"far too senior a lawyer with impeccable integrity. He's certainly not biased."
The Chief Justice, in a lighter vein, observed that an amicus is usually only liked by the court, but clarified that the amicus is fair to all, which Mr. Ramachandran had been doing in this case.
Later, Odisha AG Pitambar Acharya expressed his profound respect for the amicus, stating that his only intention was to say that facts must be properly placed before the court. The AG's retraction, while not a formal apology, appeared to diffuse the tension.
Legal Analysis: The Role of the
The incident raises important questions about the ethical boundaries and professional courtesy expected in court proceedings. An , or "friend of the court," is appointed to assist the judiciary in reaching a just decision, particularly in complex or sensitive matters. The amicus must remain neutral and cannot be seen as advocating for any party. Any suggestion of bias, even if unintentional, can undermine the credibility of the judicial process.
The Supreme Court's swift rejection of the AG's comment reinforces the principle that the court will protect its officers from unfounded attacks. As Justice Bagchi noted, the amicus was "not on trial" – the court itself is the arbiter of the facts and law. The incident also underscores the importance of decorum in legal arguments. While is the norm, counsel must avoid personal remarks that can be construed as impugning the integrity of fellow lawyers, especially those serving the court in an official capacity.
Impact on Legal Practice
The exchange serves as a reminder to advocates, particularly those holding high constitutional offices such as Advocate General, to choose their words carefully. The integrity of the legal profession depends on mutual respect and the presumption that every counsel, whether for a party or as an amicus, acts in . The court's defence of Mr. Ramachandran sets a that such comments will not be tolerated.
For legal professionals, the episode highlights the delicate balance between zealous representation and professional courtesy. It also reinforces the value of the amicus system, which relies on the independence and credibility of senior counsel. As the Prakash Singh case continues, the court will likely expect the to present its case without further personal remarks.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's intervention in defence of Amicus Raju Ramachandran reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to maintaining the impartiality and dignity of its proceedings. The incident, while momentarily heated, ended with expressions of respect from all sides. It serves as a valuable lesson in and the proper conduct of court business. As the DGP appointment matter proceeds, the focus will rightly return to the substantive issue – whether the complied with the Prakash Singh guidelines. The amicus, now firmly backed by the court, can continue his task of assisting the bench without any cloud of suspicion.
