Shortly before lunch the matter of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) appointment came up in Court 3 with Prashant Bhushan, counsel for petitioner, making the submissions of why the CVC's appointment was dubious.
Once he completed, the attorney general Mukul Rohatgi and senior advocate Aryama Sundaram stood together and, Rohatgi in particular, vociferously protested against the petitioner not bothering to inform the respondents about the case coming up for hearing today.
The tone and tenor of the AG's outburst against Bhushan surprised Justice Khehar who asked him what explained such aggression.
"This is an insult to the court," Khehar told the AG
"It is unfair to us," the judge continued, adding: "This is happening all the time. This must stop."
The AG said sorry and immediately changed to a soft tone and explained his concerns of having been ignored by the petitioner repeatedly.
Bhushan, however, denied the allegations and claimed they knew the case was coming up today.
The bench then said if the AG had any suggestions to the petitioners it could be expressed politely.
The bench directed issue of notices on the two IAs filed in the case.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I don't blame any Advocate for losing his cool, when faced with arguments from PB. [...] Its bloody easy to walk around as if you have a halo upon your head, when you have a family fortune earned from defending the same corporates that you vilify.
Here's a more detailed profile of Prashant Bhushan examining his style and background a little more:
www.legallyindia.com/Supreme-Court-Postcards/the-epoch-of-prashant-bhushan-court-witness-brief-history-of-pil
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first