In a recent session, the Supreme Court heard an application from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which seeks amendments to a prior order concerning a controversial “fake” Special Leave Petition (SLP). The case erupted when a petitioner disclaimed any knowledge of filing the SLP and did not recognize the advocates listed as representing him. The court had previously ordered a CBI investigation into the matter, specifying that only authorized advocates should appear on record.
The SCBA raised concerns about the potential prejudicial impact of the court’s previous observations, particularly highlighted in paragraph 25 of the judgment. This section implicates several individuals and attorneys in allegedly fabricating judicial proceedings to falsely target another individual.
Represented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, the SCBA pointed out the lack of a customary disclaimer in the court’s remarks, which typically states that such observations should not influence ongoing investigations or trials, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi questioned the SCBA’s standing in the matter. In response, Sibal suggested that while the court might dismiss their application for lack of standing, it should still consider revising the order on its own accord to prevent any potential biases.
Justice Trivedi upheld the court’s initial decision, asserting that it was based on comprehensive inquiries and reflective of troubling trends within the Supreme Court’s culture. Despite this, the court has postponed a definitive ruling, scheduling a follow-up hearing next Thursday due to the current bench’s composition.
