A bench headed by Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit told the petitioner’s counsel, “We see no reason to entertain the petition, petition is misconceived,” and dismissed it.

During the hearing in the matter, the petitioner’s counsel cited certain “irregularities, illegal acts” allegedly committed by Justice Chandrachud. The bench, also comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi told the counsel: “We do not see any substance in this petition”.

In a case related to Covid vaccination, the counsel submitted that when a senior advocate appeared, Justice Chandrachud’s bench allowed tagging, but when a junior advocate appeared no tagging was allowed.

He further argued that Justice Chandrachud’s bench heard a special leave petition arising out of an order in the Bombay High Court in which his son had appeared as a counsel.

The petition was filed on the basis of a representation filed by one Rashid Khan Pathan before the President of India against Justice Chandrachud.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have issued statements condemning the letter circulated against Justice Chandrachud.

The petition was mentioned by a counsel for urgent listing by the petitioner’s counsel Wednesday morning before a bench headed by Chief Justice Lalit. The counsel submitted that the oath is on November 9 and requested for urgent listing. The top court listed the matter for hearing at 12.45 p.m.

Disclaimer: This story is auto-aggregated by a computer program and has not been created or edited by FreshersLIVE.Publisher : IANS-Media