New Delhi: Decorousness and discipline turned out to be a major concern on Thursday for a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay K Kaul in the Supreme Court.
From how an officer should dress up when he shows up before the highest court, to mannerism of litigants inside the courtroom, the bench expressed apprehensions if decorum was being taken casually by one and all.
A day ago, an Additional Chief Secretary of the Rajasthan government had appeared before the bench, dressed up in a slightly informal manner as he wore a pink shirt and grey trousers.
Justice Chelameswar was irked. "Is this how everyone in your office dress up? Do your officers come to see you in slippers, dhoti or casual dress? There is a dress code for bureaucrats. Have you gone through the rules? If you don't know the rules and understand what dress an official should wear while appearing in court, then you don't deserve to be an Additional Chief Secretary."
Additional Solicitor General ANS Nadkarni, representing the state government, as well as the officer himself, tendered an apology but the bench refused to hear the case until the bureaucrat followed the norms.
On Thursday, when the matter was taken up again, the officer showed up in a black coat, pants and a tie. He expressed regret once again over the way he came dressed the previous day.
Meanwhile, the ASG informed the bench that although the Himachal Pradesh High Court had once issued directions with regard to the issue, there are no rules governing the dress code for bureaucrats.
“Rules or no rules. A bureaucrat must dress up well in a formal manner, showing respect to the decorum,” retorted the judges. The bench, however, expressed satisfaction over the apology and dispensed with the appearance of the officer.
There was another instance that annoyed the bench on Thursday.
In one of the cases before the same bench, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi appeared for one side while Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was on his legs, arguing for the other side.
Number of litigants stood up at the front, some even surrounding Rohatgi. While Mehta made points during his argument, these litigants gossiped, made rustling noise and even prompted Rohatgi to stand and object. Some of them could be clearly heard by the judges too.
The lack of demureness vexed the bench yet again.
“What is this happening in this court? What is the point of engaging a senior lawyer if all the clients can argue on their own,” said Justice Chelameswar, as he tossed the file away.
The judge added, “I don’t want to hear this case today. We have already understood what this case is about. We will pass the appropriate order.”
Justice Chelameswar then turned to senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, who was sitting in the court, waiting for his matter.
“Mr Subramanium, you have been senior to me in the legal profession. Have you ever seen such a thing happening? I have also practiced as a lawyer but cannot recall prompting a senior lawyer like this while the proceedings are on. Where have we come?”
Subramanium too, regretted the incident and said that everyone should be extremely careful about propriety and mannerism when they are before the top court.
Comments
0 comment