Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday reprimanded a lawyer for seeking a hearing in a case involving allegations of disproportionate assets against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, questioning the basis of the request and accusing the lawyer of attempting to attract media attention.
The Chief Justice asked whether the lawyer had consulted a news channel before raising the matter, expressing concern that the issue was being brought up without a clear basis or substantive merit. Following the exchange, he directed his staff to discontinue the live streaming of the Supreme Court's mentioning process, through which lawyers request the urgent listing of cases for hearing.
The development comes while the Supreme Court's interim stay on proceedings concerning the allegations against Gandhi remains in force. The court has restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from submitting reports to the Allahabad High Court in the matter.
CJI questions lawyer's grounds for seeking hearing
The lawyer sought a hearing on the basis of an alleged statement by Gandhi at an event that he was in contact with 200 officials from the ED and the CBI. The lawyer cited the alleged remark while requesting that the matter be listed before the court.
Responding to the request, Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned the basis for raising the issue and whether the lawyer had consulted a news channel about it.
“Have you consulted a news channel about this? You only want to raise this matter for the sake of media attention,” the Chief Justice remarked.
The CJI indicated that the attempt to raise the issue lacked a clear basis and substantive merit. He subsequently directed the court staff to stop live streaming the mentioning process.
Mentioning is the procedure through which lawyers seek an early hearing for cases they consider urgent. The Chief Justice, who heads the Supreme Court, considers such requests before deciding whether a matter warrants urgent listing.
Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court order
The Supreme Court had granted interim relief to Gandhi in August by staying an Allahabad High Court order that had directed the CBI and the ED to examine allegations that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The order was passed in May by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court questioned how the High Court could have issued directions to the investigating agencies without first hearing Gandhi.
The apex court directed the Allahabad High Court to defer further proceedings in the matter until further orders. It also restrained the CBI, the ED and any other authority from submitting reports to the High Court pursuant to the directions under challenge.
The Supreme Court subsequently continued the interim protection in September while adjourning the matter to allow the complainant and the Union government to file their responses.
The proceedings before the apex court arose from Gandhi's challenge to the High Court's orders. He has also sought the transfer of the case from the Allahabad High Court to the Delhi High Court.
BJP worker's complaint triggered the case
The case originated from a complaint filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker from Karnataka, who levelled allegations concerning the assets of Gandhi and sought an investigation into whether they were disproportionate to his known sources of income.
The Allahabad High Court had directed the investigating agencies to verify the allegations in accordance with the law and take appropriate steps as permissible. The agencies were also asked to apprise the High Court of the progress made in the matter.
Gandhi challenged the High Court's directions before the Supreme Court, arguing against the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaint. The apex court issued notices to Shishir, the CBI and the ED while considering his challenge.
In granting interim relief, the Supreme Court questioned the decision to issue directions to the agencies without giving Gandhi an opportunity to be heard. It also restrained the agencies from submitting reports before the High Court until further orders.
The latest exchange before the Chief Justice comes against the backdrop of the ongoing legal challenge, with the Supreme Court's interim directions continuing to hold while the matter remains pending.