The long term irritating wait for commoners in convoluted lines for justice constrained the Supreme Court on Wednesday to venture out towards allotting severe time plan, as polished by the Supreme courts of the US and the UK, with a notice that infringement of time limit points would bring about automatic endless dismissal of hearing.
A bench of Justices Sanjay K Kaul and R S Reddy assigned 30 minutes each to senior lawyers A M Singhvi and Arvind Datar showing up for solicitor Yatin Oza, one hour to Gujarat HC counsel Nikhil Goel and 15 minutes to an intervenor addressed by senior advocate C S Sundaram. Oza has defied a Gujarat HC verdict to strip him of senior advocate designation discovering him more than once offering offensive remarks against judges and the legal executive,
The case has been imminent for almost a year beforehand to the SC and has arrived at an impasse with the HC declining to rethink — even with the SC's pushing — its decision to strip Oza of the senior advocate title. The HC passed on to the SC that in its June 20 Full Court meeting it has emphasized its choice, declining to show mercy to Oza.
Setting up the case for conclusive hearing, the bench said it would not allow the counsel for gatherings to continue contending for quite a long time. "How would we legitimize the pendency of many years old cases and afterward giving a really long time together to hear contentions from senior lawyers in current cases? Indeed, even in the UK or the US Supreme Courts, we don't think there is any framework which licenses legal advisors to contend for quite a long time".
Justice Kaul said, "In the US Supreme Court, the counsel are allowed uniquely to refer to verdicts and not read it. Be that as it may, here the advocates refer to 20 judgments for each proposal and attempt to make great their contention by perusing every one of the 20 verdicts". The bench told the counsel that they should pick the best of the decisions fitting their commendations and refer to one judgment for every proposal. There is a typical pattern in the SC where the lawyers tell the adjudicators that he would require 10 seconds by the clock in putting a proposal. Notwithstanding, as a general rule the 10 seconds stretch to 10 minutes.
Singhvi said, "For a very long time he has been barred off the senior designation, which itself is a satisfactory punishment for the wrongdoing. The candidate has learnt a perpetual message." The bench said that it would consider his request if the HC forced punishment was suitable or not.