Chandrachud CJI: Court tells Lawyer speaking in informal language: ‘This is not a Coffee Shop’
There was a sharp riposte from Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud during proceedings in the Supreme Court on Monday to an attorney for using colloquial slang while addressing the bench. This is when the attorney used “yeah” instead of “yes,” prompting CJI Chandrachud to remind the advocate of decorum required in the courtroom. Lines of caution made this exchange significant to show the importance of maintenance of professionalism and acceptable behavior in judicial settings.
Informality in the Courtroom: Warning by CJI Chandrachud
An unexpected twist took the hearing as lawyer, appearing before the bench, said “yeah, yeah” in reply to the question posed by CJI Chandrachud. The chief justice swiftly interrupted, taking offense at the informal use of words. “Don’t say ‘yeah yeah yeah.’ Say ‘yes.’ This is not a coffee shop, this is a court,” CJI Chandrachud said. The Chief Justice further added that “I am a little allergic to people saying ‘yeah.'”
It was not merely a matter of semantics but an essential reminder of the decorum such an institution, being the highest court of the country, looks to inculcate. CJI Chandrachud’s reaction brings to fore how formal and respectful communication is important in the judicial environment where language and etiquette assume immense significance.
The Case at Hand: Petition Against Ex-CJI Ranjan Gogoi
The lawyer in question had filed a public interest litigation – PIL seeking an in-house inquiry against former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi. It sought a review of some earlier decisions involving the former CJI as questions were also raised about his conduct when he was in office.
During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud questioned the counsels of the petitioner. “How do you file a PIL with a judge as a respondent?” he questioned. The attorney raising casual “yeah, yeah” was cut short by the Chief Justice that resulted in the sharp exchange.
He further clarified filing a plea against a judge in such a manner was not possible. “Justice Gogoi was a judge of this court. You cannot file a plea like this against a judge and seek an in-house inquiry because you did not succeed before the bench,” he said. The Chief Justice’s words reflected the serious manner with which the judiciary views its own proceedings and the respect that must be accorded to sitting and former judges.
Within the Larger Context: Preserving Order in Court Proceedings
This reveals a general concern by CJI Chandrachud on the level of professionalism and decorum needed to be exercised in courts of law. Such addresses are certainly not at all congruent with informal language usage when such auspicious solemnity is conferred on the institutions.
Court settings are places of dignity where authority, protocol and established customs must always be held in respect. The Chief Justice’s objection to a lawyer using the word “yeah” instead of “yes” might, to most ordinary human ears, be considered some trifle, but represents a reflection of the high standards being maintained in a court. Such expectations are necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
This incident reminds lawyers and litigants of the proper conducts of courts. The language used inside courtrooms must always be respectful and professional as it conveys not just the individual but also the profession at large.
Other Important Cases Before Supreme Court
The same day that CJI Chandrachud and the lawyer hogged the headlines with the hotter-than-the-sizzling-six-degrees-Celsius exchange, several pressing cases were listed for the Supreme Court hearings-including one that has to do with the controversy over animal fat in laddus, a religious offering distributed at the Sri Venkateswara temple in Andhra Pradesh.
The controversy began when animal fat was alleged to have been used to fry the laddus distributed by the previous YSR Congress administration headed by Jagan Mohan Reddy. Reddy rejected the false charge outright and it snowballed into a political and religious debate. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and YV Subba Reddy, the Rajya Sabha member belonging to the YSR Congress Party, have both filed petitions seeking a court-monitored probe.
It will decide whether an independent investigation is warranted and whether the accusations call for more scrutiny. This is the case where millions of devotees consider the laddu offered in Tirupati sacred, so any hint of wrongdoing may have serious consequences.
Hearing on Rape and Murder Case of Kolkata Trainee Doctor
Another case the Supreme Court is to hear suo motu is that of rape and murder of a trainee doctor in RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata. The nation is in shock following this incident last month, with calls for justice from all quarters.
The as many as three-judge bench was headed by the CJI Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The bench was supposed to consider serious issues in the case, including the need for expeditious investigation and accountability. Hearing, scheduled earlier on September 27, was therefore postponed to Monday due to conflicts in scheduling.
That will be a very significant hearing with far-reaching legal and social implications. Intervention of the Supreme Court in matters like these points out the role of judiciary in delivering justice to the victims of such heinous crimes at times when public opinion demands quick action.
Conclusion: Respecting the Court
More indirectly, reminding the formal sense in which judicial proceedings are maintained, Chief Justice of India Chandrachud admonished the lawyer for his usage of casual language in the court. The reason the Chief Justice reacted this way is that their respect for the judiciary, its processes, and its officers should be retained. Courtrooms are not non-serious places and need serious expressions in language.
At the same time, there are numerous cases involving many high-profile issues that are highly sensitive, and in such matters, the judgment of the Supreme Court is the final decision-making institution at the level of a country. Whether the issue involves controversies related to religion or even meting out justice in cases of criminal activities, the apex court is still a prime institution as far as upholding and ensuring that this rule of law is upheld.
Read more about related article, just click here
