We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
=======================================================================
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai criticised the stand taken by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in not offering a farewell to Justice Bela M Trivedi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/chief-justice-br-gavai-on-no-farewell-for-judge-bela-trivedi-deprecate-openly-8429360#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Bela Trivedi had consistently given decisions which, in the opinion of most lawyers & students of law, could have had better legal reasoning. This includes things such as:
- Anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be granted in economic offences (Why? It goes against previous judgments) - https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/anticipatory-bail-should-be-granted-sparingly-in-economic-offences-supreme-court
- Not declaring a marriage as irretrievably broken down because the wife claimed she did not want to die with the label of divorcee - https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-89-year-old-man-plea-for-divorce
- Cancelling bails/refusing to grant bails in multiple matters where, primarily, it appeared that under trial custody is being equated as the punishment, with the assumption that the accused is in fact the convict.
But all that was still minor, compared to the manner in which lawyers were being treated. Not talking about the CBI inquiry, hardly any lawyer felt that order as being wrong. The other episodes: such as saying only one lawyer's appearance should be marked in the order. I remember one of the reason she had stated during the hearing was "this is how it is in district courts also" - why is the SC practice being decided as per what is followed in the district courts, god knows! (See https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/no-bar-no-limit-aors-appearances/ )
Then it got worse. Getting angry one day because the arguing counsel was not an AOR. She said, wrongly, that is not permitted by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and was corrected when a senior advocate intervened and pointed out the correct provision to her. (See https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/how-can-advocate-on-record-authorise-a-non-aor-to-argue-on-his-behalf-supreme-court-asks-283178 ).
Then the entire episode concerning absence of an AOR because he was visiting his village. The senior advocate (and a former HC judge) stated that the AOR was indeed travelling to his village, yet, instead of believing the statement, she ordered the AOR to be personally present with the travel tickets - highly unusual for a court to direct for an advocate. Almost forgetting that the advocate is not the same as a party. And then when he appeared with the return ticket, she had some issues about the ticket from Delhi not being produced, as if the AOR could have travelled from his village to Delhi without leaving Delhi first.
More importantly, it was not just the content of these episodes, but also her tone, tenor & conduct during all this (and in other proceedings) - some harsh things are often accepted by the Bar when they come with a polite tone. But if they come with a harsh tone, too, of course there would be resistance.
And that is how a lot of lawyers felt disrespected. The farewell being something that lawyers give as a mark of respect, in return, I see it as no surprise that it was absent. This is my understanding of the state of affairs, and if someone else here is privy to some other information that sheds more light upon why there was no farewell, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
“The boycott stemmed from a split decision of an SC bench on punishment to an AoR who had reportedly suppressed material and attempted to mislead the court in a criminal case. While Justice Trivedi had ordered the AoR’s name to be struck off the rolls for a month, her colleague Satish C Sharma had let him off with a warning.”
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cji-chides-bar-associations-for-boycotting-justice-bela-trivedi-farewell/amp_articleshow/121221985.cms
Justice Trivedi was honest and had zero tolerance towards corruption, including by lawyers (who think they are above the law and have turned the justice system into a joke).
So please believe what TOI says and not the ▮▮▮ ▮▮▮ ▮▮▮ of LI, who dislike Justice Trivedi for obvious reasons.
That being said, I'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a troll. And your comment fails to offer a little more than ad hominem attacks which the admin has censored before I could see what it was.
There is no apparent reason to blindly believe TOI, however. Believe it why? Because it's TOI? That's the logical fallacy of appeal to authority - no need to elaborate any further here.
However, I would like to highlight at this juncture that the point you raised has been addressed in my comment already. Read the third-from-the-last paragraph, starting with "then the entire episode concerning absence of an AOR..." in my comment. It's there, my learned friend. Then read the paragraph succeeding that. A lot of lawyers were pissed not because of what the order contained, but the manner in which the proceedings took place.
Again, to you & to other readers of LI - feel free to correct me or add any information that I have missed out. But relying upon TOI reports for what happened in courts, for matters which are anyway well known? We can do better.
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/amp/story/national/controversial-end-to-tenure-justice-bela-trivedi-retires-as-supreme-court-judge