E-Paper
‘Don’t use rifle while practising law’: SC relief for Chandigarh shooter
In June, a vacation bench in the high court directed the UT Department of Sports to issue the necessary sports gradation certificate to Manraj Singh Chatha
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the grant of a sports gradation certificate to a shooter for enabling him to pursue a five-year law degree course, even as it advised him with a touch of humour, “At least become a good lawyer now. And do not use a rifle when you practise law.”
The comments from a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan came as it refused to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana high court’s decision, which had declared the denial of a sports gradation certificate to Manraj Singh Chatha as “unjust, unfair, arbitrary, and irrational.”
The bench refused to interfere with the high court’s June judgment that granted relief to Chatha, though it clarified that this judgment would not serve as a judicial precedent.
Chatha had approached the high court after being denied a sports graduation certificate solely because he was not a student of a school or college recognised by the Chandigarh Administration and located within the Union territory.
In June, a vacation bench in the high court directed the UT Department of Sports to issue the necessary sports gradation certificate to Chatha within three days. This was to enable him to secure admission to a five-year integrated law course at Panjab University.
The high court observed that the denial of the certificate was solely based on Chatha not having studied in a Chandigarh-recognised institution despite him representing the Chandigarh Rifle Association at the state and national levels. It further noted that the denial of the certificate was based on an arbitrary policy, which unfairly penalised Chatha for studying in Mohali while representing Chandigarh in sports competitions.
Arguing for the UT’s appeal before the bench, additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati argued that their policy was meant to cover only those students who study in schools and colleges recognised by the UT Administration and situated in Chandigarh, and who had studied there regularly for at least two years.
“We are not against this student or any other student nor are we doubting the capabilities of the present petitioner. But our policy does not cover him and if the high court judgment is held to be correct, it will frustrate the objective and purpose of the policy,” Bhati argued.
However, the bench replied that in the facts of the case, the benefits of the certificate ought to be ensured to Chatha even though the judgment may not lay down a precedent for others to follow.
The court then recorded in its order: “We are not inclined to interfere in the present facts of the case but we clarify that the high court order will not be used as a precedent in any other case.”
As Chatha’s lawyer thanked the court, the bench quipped: “At least become a good lawyer now. And do not use a rifle when you practise law.”
