One senior counsel waited outside the court hall in the searing heat; another inside the court room was strongly advised against arguing.
Tuesday was a day when a vacation bench in the Supreme Court remained out of bounds for the lawyers with coveted gowns. Before the bench presided over by justice Vikram Nath, the proceedings were all about giving opportunity to young lawyers to learn the ropes of advocacy and hone their craft.
The message of refrain was loud and clear as soon as the bench, also comprising justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, commenced its business for the day. “Why are you appearing through VC (video-conferencing) Mr Singhvi? Why are you appearing before a vacation bench? We will not hear a senior counsel during the vacation. Please, ask your advocate on record (AoR) to mention,” justice Nath was quick to tell senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who logged in to mention a matter.
Singhvi received the message well. “I understand my lords. It’s accepted. I will not mention it. I will rather ask my assisting counsel to mention it tomorrow,” he said. One of the assisting counsel, who was present in the court hall, then mentioned the case and got a date of hearing on Monday.
Minutes later, it was the turn of senior counsel Anjana Prakash to incur court’s indisposition. “Why are you here? Is it not the vacation? We won’t hear you, senior counsel. We will rather hear the counsel standing next to you,” the bench told Prakash.
{{/usCountry}}Minutes later, it was the turn of senior counsel Anjana Prakash to incur court’s indisposition. “Why are you here? Is it not the vacation? We won’t hear you, senior counsel. We will rather hear the counsel standing next to you,” the bench told Prakash.
{{/usCountry}}To this, Prakash retorted that apart from not hearing senior lawyers during the vacation, the bench should also follow the practice of not dismissing the case during the vacation when junior lawyers argue.
“That, we will see. Let him start arguing first,” justice Nath told Prakash. The assisting counsel then argued the matter and got the case admitted. “Should I say, I am obliged, my lords?” asked Prakash after getting the propitious order. “No, madam. You may not. Let the one who got the order say it,” quipped the bench.
To be sure, there is no rule that restrains senior lawyers from arguing during the vacation. However, as a matter of convention, vacation benches urge senior lawyers to let young and junior counsel take centrestage. But Justice Nath, who is in the line to become the Chief Justice of India in 2027 for a little over seven months, has adopted a rather firm stand on allowing only the junior counsel to argue before his bench.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who came next, tried to put up some resistance. “Senior counsel have been allowed to argue during the vacation benches. I also argued before a vacation bench yesterday,”he contended.
But the bench was unmoved. “Not in my court, Mr Dave...We will not allow seniors during the vacation. We have been transparent in this. And if you insist, your client may not be happy,” the bench replied.
“But I have appeared in multiple matters during the vacation. Many senior lawyers have...the time my lords are talking about will also come someday,” Dave pressed. Justice Nath responded: “Things need to change...We think it’s time to start changing things here.”
The bench’s unwillingness to indulge senior lawyers travelled like the clappers. Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, thus, chose to wait outside the court hall.
His assisting counsel submitted: “Mr Kaul is waiting outside the court room, and he will enter only if the court permits. This is a high-stakes matter about the control of a company and therefore, we want him to argue. Can he be permitted, my lords?”
“No,” replied justice Nath, asking the assisting counsel, Aniruddha Deshmukh, to begin arguing the matter. Deshmukh then argued for around 10 minutes. The bench not only entertained the petition and issued notices, it also granted an order of status quo till July 10.
Later in the day, senior counsel Sidharth Luthra made his way into the court hall but made it abundantly clear that he would be the “assisting counsel” in the case. Luthra pointed out that the petitioner-in-person will have to argue the matter since there was nobody else ready with the brief apart from him. “I will only assist her with the list of dates,” added Luthra.
As the petitioner argued the matter and Luthra tried to assist the court with certain facts, the bench remarked:”Mr Luthra, you will put us in trouble. We have so far asked four senior counsel to desist from arguing before the vacation bench.” Luthra was prompt in offering a solution: “I can step out of the court room, my lords.”
The bench, however, acknowledged the complexities of the case and adjourned it to next week. “We don’t want to pass any adverse orders since the matter requires a counsel to argue it. Let it come up before some other bench next week. That bench may allow a senior to argue,” said justice Nath, wrapping up the board for the day.
The Supreme Court is on vacation till July 2.