The BBA Standing Committee passed a resolution calling on various authorities not to heed the complaint made by a lawyer named RK Pathan who had made allegations against Judge DY Chandrachud.
Bombay,UPDATED: Oct 11, 2022 7:26 AM IST
Bombay Bar Association Seeks Lawsuit Against Attorney RK Pathan Who Raised Allegations Against Judge Chandrachud (File Photo)
From Vidy : The Bombay Bar Association (BBA) Standing Committee on Monday passed a resolution urging various authorities not to heed a complaint by a lawyer named RK Pathan who made allegations against Judge DY Chandrachud. The resolution also calls for “strict measures” to be taken against Pathan.
Judge Chandrachud is a former Justice of the Bombay Supreme Court and currently a Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The association said Pathan was the same person convicted by the Supreme Court in 2019 of contempt of court. However, Pathan has continued this practice of making allegations against judges to intimidate the judiciary and interfere with the administration of justice, BBA said.
The present complaint is nothing more than a similar action by Pathan shortly before the recommendation of Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the next Chief Justice of India. The malicious intent and intent behind such a complaint is not far to be seen and is revealed by the timing of the complaint itself, the resolution stressed.
BBA has called for strict action against Pathan and its allies in preparation for the complaint.
What Pathan had said & BBA replied:
Pathan had alleged that Judge Chandrachud issued an order in a matter allegedly related to a matter in which his son, Abhinav Chandrachud, appeared.
However, the BBA order stipulated that Abhinav Chandrachud practiced law and appeared on matters mandated by registered solicitors, which meant he did not interact directly with clients. There is nothing in the records to demonstrate the connection or anything to indicate the judge knew of any connection, BBA said.
Pathan had also said that Judge Chandrachud issued certain orders refusing to challenge restrictions on people who had not received vaccinations.
However, the BBA stated that if judicial orders issued while performing their duties as a judge were exposed to such complaints, it would amount to nothing more than an attempt to attack the very edifice of the judiciary.