The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, found himself needing to address disruptive behavior during a Supreme Court hearing on the tragic Kolkata doctor rape and murder case on September 9th. The incident occurred when a lawyer, Kaustav Bagchi, raised his voice during the proceedings, prompting the Chief Justice to intervene.
The court was hearing arguments from senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, regarding the case. Sibal had presented evidence suggesting that Bagchi, who is also a BJP leader, had been involved in throwing stones during a protest related to the crime. Bagchi challenged Sibal’s accusations, but his response was met with a reprimand from CJI Chandrachud.
“Are you trying to address the gallery outside the court? I have been noticing your demeanour for the last two hours,” CJI Chandrachud stated, emphasizing the need for decorum within the courtroom. He further instructed Bagchi to lower his voice, reminding him that he was addressing three judges, not an external audience watching the proceedings remotely.
The incident highlighted concerns about the conduct of lawyers within the court. CJI Chandrachud expressed his discomfort with the style of advocacy, where multiple individuals argue simultaneously, creating a chaotic atmosphere. “I am not used to this kind of advocacy where 7-8 people are arguing at the same time,” he remarked.
The court also addressed the ongoing protest by doctors in Kolkata, stemming from the doctor’s rape and murder at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. While acknowledging the gravity of the situation and the doctors’ concerns, CJI Chandrachud expressed concern about the disruption caused by the protest to patient care. The court allowed the West Bengal government to take disciplinary action against any doctors who refused to return to work.
“We want to ensure that doctors resume work and we will give them safety, security… but they have to join work. When we said that no adverse action shall be taken against the doctors…Mr Sibal states that no action, including punitive transfers, should be there,” CJI Chandrachud clarified the court’s position. The ruling aimed to balance the right to protest with the critical need for doctors to fulfill their professional obligations.
