Bombay HC Faults Lawyer's Article Critical of Judiciary in Stan Swamy's Bail Case

What is the case

• While hearing a request for interim medical release on behalf of DU Associate Professor Hany Babu, the Bombay High Court took issue with a recent editorial penned by a lawyer condemning the Court's treatment of octegenarian Father Stan Swamy's bail application. In the Bhima Koregaon case, both Hany Babu and Stan Swamy are awaiting trial.
• On Thursday, the court witnessed dramatic scenes as Justice SS Shinde, the division bench's chairman, exchanged words with Advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry on an editorial authored by his junior.
• The National Investigation Agency apprehended Hany Babu and Father Stan on October 8, 2020 and July 28, 2020, respectively. For allegedly forwarding the cause of the banned CPI (Maoist) through various civil rights organisations, they are charged under various sections of the IPC and offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
• They, along with 14 other human rights campaigners, are facing accusations.

Details

• It was not acceptable, Justice Shinde added, for Chaudhry or his associate attorney to believe that penning pieces in newspapers would help them win cases. Why approach the court if you don't believe in the system?"
• Chaudhry adamantly defended his junior's actions, claiming that neither he nor his junior had ever represented Swamy. And he'd keep writing while also asking the court for help.
• "If I'm writing articles while arguing the same case, then I or anyone from my chamber will be rightfully rebuked," he added, adding that judges can be held accountable for their decisions.
• Justice Shinde said that he was not opposed to freedom of speech and expression, but Swamy's bail request remained pending. Furthermore, though the lawyer may not have represented Father Swamy, the majority of the Bhima Koregaon - Elgar Parishad Case issues are comparable.

Courts Observation

• Justice Shinde pointed out that Chaudhry and his junior were representing three other defendants in the case, and that commenting on a case that was still pending was inappropriate.
• Someone brought it to Justice Shinde's attention that there had been a discussion over the editorial.
• "Due to a shortage of time, I do not read news items at the expense of repetition. However, there was a debate in this case. If you don't believe in us, why come before us? So many issues relating to freedom of speech and expression have been discussed and approved. Maintain faith in us and the system. We've here to do justice, and we're not afraid of anyone."
• Haudhry quickly added, "We only come to the court because we have faith in the justice system. However, the court has a habit of betraying our faith in it."
• Justice Shinde reminded Chaudhry that his court had granted Dr Varavara Rao sufficient relief. Following a ruling from a bench led by Justice Shinde, Rao has been granted interim medical release.

What do you think about this?