SC brickbats: ‘Hysterical’ Jaising says ‘historical’ Jethmalani should face criminal contempt as RamJet scuffles with Gopal Subramanium

India Jaisingh: Knows history when she sees it
India Jaisingh: Knows history when she sees it
Supreme Court Insider: Verbal explosives were hurled across the aisle during the Sohrabuddin fake encounter hearing in the Supreme Court of India today between additional solicitor general Indira Jaising, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani and former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium.

Jaising told the court that Jethmalani should be charged with “criminal contempt” for submitting a brief which cast aspersions on Justice Tarun Chatterjee, who at one point was a suspect in the Ghaziabad providend fund (PF) scam.

Chatterjee was being probed by the CBI in the PF scam, when he passed the order to have the Sohrabuddin case transferred from the Gujarat state police to the CBI.

Jethmalani, who is representing Gujarat home minister Amit Shah and previously spoke of a “conspiracy hatched at the highest levels” to destabilise the Gujarat government, today again alleged that Chatterjee transferred the case to CBI under pressure from a CBI investigation into himself. (The investigating agency eventually closed the case against Chatterjee on the grounds that there was not enough prosecutable evidence.)

At this juncture Jaising, appearing for the central government, said that Jethmalani was liable for contempt. Jethmalani, an old warhorse with enough tricks in his bag since joining the bar more than 70 years ago, said Jaising was being “hysterical”.

Jaising, quick off the mark and not short of bar experience herself, called Jethmalani “historical”.

Apparently not satisfied after having called a judge’s character into question, Jethmalani then trained his sights on former solicitor general Gopal Subramanium, who was appointed as amicus curiae in the case.

He said Subramanium’s appointment was not proper since he was a serving law officer at the time. This court had not looked into the manner of appointing an amicus, said Jethmalani.

But before Jethmalani could continue, the bench asked Subramanium to start his arguments. Distracted from the script by Jethmalani’s remarks, the former solicitor general diverged from the main issues before the court to justify that his appointment was proper.

Three former attorneys general had served as amicus before this court said Subramanium, naming names no lesser than MC Setalvad, CK Dapthary and Niren De.

After all advocates’ egos were strategically bruised before the bench, the court finally heard some submissions on the serious issue of alleged fake encounter killings by the Gujarat police.

Supreme Court Insider lives, works and plays in the Supreme Court and its corridors.

Insider’s apex court colleague is Court Witness who writes Supreme Court Postcards also tweets at @courtwitness1.

Comments

XYZ 30 Nov 2011, 11:57
+0 -0
Latest SC gossip. Good job. haha.Did anyone get to see this drama unfold live?
Patriot 30 Nov 2011, 12:01
+5 -0
Indira Jaising [...] lent support to Arundhati Roy's crazy conspiracy theory that Afzal is innocent, her NGO fought against the government to keep foreign law firms out, but now she has no shame in joining hands with the Indian state. For the record, Sohrabuddin was a bloody terrorist. Why does she defend terrorists? And she was fully supporting her friend Arundhati Roy when she was jailed for casting apsersions on the integrity of judges. How can she now want Jethamalani tried for contempt?
saurabh 30 Nov 2011, 13:22
+6 -0
Your argument is flawed.

If a person is a lawyer, he/she will at times defend a side which is not correct. Maybe for monetary reason or that the lawyer genuinely believes in the argument. In any case, one cannot hold the lawyer in a negative light. By that logic, Raju Ramachandran who has been asked by the SC to assist/ represent Kasab is a bad lawyer.

I would not like to enter into an argument with you regarding Indira Jaising or Jethmalani, or any one else. I am neither a fan nor a critic of these individuals. Honestly though I wish that one day I reach that level.

A lot is said by lawyers in the course of arguments, I don't think that anything said by any of these people which is not legally relevant is anyways taken seriously by the judges. After all lawyers at that level of seniority will say things to hurt each other.
saurabh 30 Nov 2011, 12:05
+0 -0
As Courtwitness1 said. was in the wrong court.

sheesh.
Vikram Pratap Singh 30 Nov 2011, 14:33
+0 -0
Well, I am a fan of both these stalwarts. One 'yells' and the other always 'steals' the show. Jet ki Jai ho!
GK 2 Dec 2011, 04:54
+1 -0
Though I don't know about Jaisingh and Subramanium, yet I have seen Ram Jethmalani arguing on TV shows. I would ONLY be surprised if the latter agreed to arguments from prosecution. It was well known recently how Jethmalani appeared for a client (in 2G scam) much against the wishes of his own political party.

'To err is human'. To ARGUE is Ram Jethmalani.
Shashank 4 Dec 2011, 14:52
+0 -0
I was lucky to watch the proceedings in the court, it was my first day as an intern in the Supreme Court. It was a jampacked court room, heated arguments from both sides, Justice Aftab Alam rapped Gujarat Advocate General on the next day. Indira Jaisingh was at her best, charging Jethmalani that he is defending a criminal who belongs to the same party of which he is a Rajya Sabha Member and he has political aspirations even at this age......the whole proceeding was eye-catching and mind blowing...
PCJ 6 Dec 2011, 18:19
+0 -0
His antics worked didn't they? A nice day of stalling! Attaboy Ramu!