The Bench and the Bar

PTI reported that all of Delhi’s six district courts’ lawyers today decided they would go on a two-day strike over Parliament’s delay in tabling the bill to enhance lower courts’ pecuniary jurisdiction.

The lawyers would march and assemble outside the Prime Minister’s residence. Several strikes have been held over the issue.

Read this recent Legally India feature in Mint for more background on the long-running dispute.

Access will be chargeable but is hoped to overcome difficulties.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, accused in a defamation case filed by senior congress leader Kapil Sibal’s son Amit, appeared before a court here on Saturday.

Kejriwal appeared before Metropolitan Magistrate Sunil Kumar Sharma after Amit Sibal’s counsel opposed his application seeking exemption from personal appearance as Kejriwal had to attend the convocation function of St. Stephen’s College.

Sibal’s counsel Mohit Mathur opposed Kejriwal’s plea and said whether a college convocation was more important than attending court proceedings.

Kejriwal’s counsel Rahul Mehra told the court that Kejriwal and Sisodia would appear before it at 12.30 p.m. and after that both marked their presence in the afternoon.

Mathur, however, did not oppose the exemption plea moved by Sisodia.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Shazia Ilmi, who has quit the Aam Aadmi Party, accused in the case also appeared before court.

Meanwhile, the court recorded the statement of Amit Sibal.

The case was filed by Amit Sibal after Kejriwal, during a press conference in 2013, alleged conflict of interest over his appearing in the Supreme Court for telecom major Vodafone while his father was the union communication minister.

The final instalment of Delhi Barfly’s catalogue of Delhi district court animals concludes with The Bootlegger and The Instigators.

Senior advocate Harish Salve was celebrated by the Society of Indian Law Firms (Silf) at a dinner earlier this evening, for having received the Padma Bhushan.

Mint reported that Justice Anil R Dave, who’s heading the five-judge constitution bench that will hear challenges to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, today recused himself from the case:

The move came after senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, who represents lawyers body and petitioner Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association, raised an objection. He argued that after a 13 April notification by the government which brought into force the NJAC Act, Justice Dave became part of the commission whose validity has been challenged.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi called the objection raised by Nariman “unfounded” and “completely condemnable”.

Even as an association of female lawyers in the Supreme Court has petitioned the court to ban gang rape lawyers ML Sharma and AP Singh, they might end up getting away with allegedly inciting murder. But why not redraw the boundaries of adversarial litigation while we're at it, asks Saurav Datta.

According to a resolution passed yesterday by the Jharkhand state bar council, advocates in the state were called to go on strike today to protest attacks against advocates and “demand adequate security” from the police.

PTI reported that Supreme Court justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant rejected a PIL filed by Prashant Bhushan with his father, senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing:

seeking registration of an FIR against former apex court judge and Press Council of India Chairman Justice C K Prasad for allegedly passing some inappropriate orders in a civil appeal during his tenure as a judge, saying if such pleas are taken up it will “open dangerous doors”.

The bench found that the Lalita Kumari guidelines - requiring police to compulsorily register an FIR in certain cases - should not apply on the present facts to judges. The Bhushans alleged that:

Justice Prasad, during his tenure as Supreme Court judge, passed an order directing listing of a civil appeal before him which was previously pending before another bench.