The challenge against the removal of CBI Director Alok Verma took an unexpected but explosive turn on Tuesday when the Supreme Court accused parties of freely parting with sensitive allegations against top government functionaries to the media and using the court as a "platform to say anything they want". "This court is not a platform for anybody to say anything they want... This is a place for adjudication of legal rights. We intend to set this right," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said in a grim voice.
The three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Gogoi refused to hear any submissions from other lawyers, but asked senior advocate Fali Nariman, the patriarch of the Supreme Court Bar, for assistance to steer the rough waters the case has landed in.
The request, the court clarified time and again, was made to Mr. Nariman not in his capacity as the senior counsel for Mr. Verma, but as a friend of the court and the "most respected member of the Bar". "We hope you will help us regardless of whom you represent in this case," Chief Justice Gogoi addressed Mr. Nariman. At one point during the hearing, Chief Justice Gogoi turned to other lawyers in the case and lashed out "we don't think any of you deserve a hearing." The fact that the court was incensed by the goings-on was apparent when the Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph, decided to adjourn the hearing itself. It posted the case for November 29, saying the same combination of three judges would be available next only on that day. The tipping point seems to be the publication of an application filed by senior CBI officer Manish Kumar Sinha and widely reported in the media on Tuesday. The application involved a series of allegations levelled against National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, Union Minister of State for Coal and Mines Haribhai Parthibhai Chaudhary, Union Law Secretary Suresh Chandra, among others. The application was orally mentioned by Mr. Sinha's lawyer, Sunil Fernandes, before the CJI Bench mid-day November 19. "Yesterday we refused the mentioning. We expressed that the highest degree of confidentiality to be maintained... but today we see the litigant has gone ahead and given everything to everybody," Chief Justice referred to the media reportage on the Sinha application. The Bench passed on the newspaper copies to Mr. Nariman, saying confidentiality and restraint was sought because the reputations of high-ranking officers and institutions were at stake. The series of events which occurred in the courtroom of the top judge on Tuesday could be divided into two segments. In the first half, the judges came armed with a media report and expressed annoyance about how certain sections of the media have purportedly reported the response filed by Mr. Verma to the CVC inquiry report against him. On November 16, the Supreme Court had given express instruction to Mr. Verma's lawyers led by Mr. Nariman to keep the CVC report confidential. The court had further asked Mr. Verma's side to file a response in a sealed cover on November 19 by 1 p.m. "We had not given it to you just as a counsel for any party but as the most respected senior member of the Bar," CJI Gogoi addressed Mr. Nariman about the purported media leak. At first, Mr. Nariman seemed to have been caught unawares by the allegation of a leak and initially said "what do you do with people snooping around. We did not want it to come into public domain... Your Lordships should call someone who edits them (media outlets)". He even said a "free press should also be a responsible press". However, shortly after the case was adjourned to November 29, Mr. Nariman requested a second audience with the Bench when the day's list of cases was over. Towards noon, the Bench asked Mr. Nariman what he wanted. Mr. Nariman came forward to clarify to the court that what was published was Mr. Verma's reply to a CVC questionnaire and not his reply to the CVC inquiry report submitted in a sealed cover to the apex court on November 19. The day also saw a public rift between Mr. Nariman and advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who initially represented Mr. Verma's petition in the apex court. In the morning, the Chief Justice referred to how Mr. Sankaranarayanan had appeared on Monday and orally sought more time to file Mr. Verma's response. Mr. Nariman replied the request made by Mr. Sankaranarayanan for more time was "totally unauthorised". "Nobody even asked him (Sankaranarayanan) to... I was never informed. I only read it in the morning in the papers," Mr. Nariman said. Mr. Sankaranarayanan in turn tried to "clear his name" about the "unauthorised" mentioning he made on Monday. But Chief Justice Gogoi repeatedly cut him short, saying "that as far as the court is concerned there is no cloud over the names of anyone here... but we will not hear anything or anyone". Mr. Sankaranarayanan persisted that he was "fully authorised" to make the mentioning on Monday, but Mr. Nariman admonished the younger lawyer, saying "it was I who said the mentioning was unauthorised". "I may be following the principles of an earlier century, but I have been in practice for 67 years. I have the requisite experience to say that no mentioning can be done before the court without first informing the senior counsel," Mr. Nariman added.
