‘Error caused embarrassment’ :SC accepts apology of advocate

The Supreme Court has accepted the apology of an advocate, whose name in the order of proceedings was recorded as ‘Mr. Put Mine’, while noting that the mistake was unintentional.

A bench comprising justices Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol said: “This error in the recording of the proceedings of the said date has caused a lot of embarrassment to this court as the same has been widely circulated on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.”

An advocate has to fill up an appearance slip with the name of the counsel representing the party, which is recorded by the court officer. In this matter, besides giving the name of another counsel, the lawyer asked the court staff to record the ‘put mine’ name, which was literally recorded.

The bench said, “The Advocate on Record present before us is a young lawyer and has tendered an unqualified apology for the embarrassment caused to this court on account of a bona fide mistake in the record of proceedings.”

The apex court initiated suo motu proceedings in the matter after noticing that the name of one of the advocates of the petitioner was recorded as “Mr Put Mine, Advocate” in the record of proceedings dated March 17.

In an order passed on April 13, the top court said: “Advocate on Record of the petitioner is present before us along with learned senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and K.V. Viswanathan. Both of them have stated before us that on account of an unintentional mistake committed by the clerk of the advocate on record in forwarding the WhatsApp message/communication received from the advocate who wanted his name to be recorded in the record of proceeding dated 17.03.2023, the message received by the clerk on WhatsApp was ‘Put Mine’ though actually what he wanted to communicate was that his name be also recorded in the proceedings.”

The bench noted that inadvertently, the message as received was forwarded and put in portal appearance online and proceedings were generated with the name “Mr Put Mine, Advocate” and the court officer recorded the same as generated in the record of proceedings.

The bench said: “The Advocate on Record present before us is a young lawyer and has tendered an unqualified apology for the embarrassment caused to this court on account of a bona fide mistake in the record of proceedings. Two learned senior counsel have also vehemently requested us to accept the apology.”

The bench observed that there appears to be no mala fide intention on the part of any of the advocates or clerk or the court officer.

“We accept the apology. We further make it clear that once the mistake was unintentional and due to an inadvertence without any motive or mala fide intention, and we have accepted the apology tendered, no further action of any kind is warranted either against the Advocate on Record, clerk or the court officers,” the bench noted.

Closing the matter, the bench added, “Accordingly, we close this matter on the judicial as well as on the administrative side. Revised record of proceeding dated March 17 be issued by deleting the name ‘Mr. Put Mine, Advocate’.”

(IANS)

Meghalaya among 9 states to withdraw general consent to CBI

As many as nine states, including Telangana and Meghalaya, have withdrawn the general consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for probing certain offences.

The information was disclosed by Union Minister Jitendra Singh during the winter session of the Parliament in December 2022.

The minister informed the House that as per Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, the CBI requires the consent of the respective state governments to conduct investigations in their jurisdiction.

The state governments had granted general consent to the CBI for the investigation of a specified class of offences against specified categories of persons, enabling the agency to register and investigate those specified matters, Singh elaborated. However, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Punjab, Rajasthan, Telangana, and West Bengal have withdrawn the general consent to the CBI to investigate cases. This move could potentially create roadblocks for the CBI to investigate cases in these states.

Non-BJP-ruled states have accused the CBI of “selectively targeting” Opposition leaders.

The withdrawal of consent could also affect the CBI’s ability to investigate cases that have national significance or interstate ramifications. It remains to be seen how the CBI will navigate these challenges and continue to discharge its duties effectively.

This development highlights the need for a comprehensive review of the DSPE Act, 1946, and its provisions related to the CBI’s jurisdiction and powers.

In March this year, a Parliamentary Committee emphasised the withdrawal of general consent for the CBI probe by several states and stated that the existing law governing the federal probe agency has “several limitations”.

The committee has suggested the need to enact new legislation that defines the CBI’s status, functions, and powers.

“The Committee feels that the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act has many limitations and therefore, recommends that there is a need to enact a new law and define the status, functions and powers of the CBI and also lay down safeguards to ensure objectivity and impartiality in its functioning,” it said.

Rudra Vikram Singh, Supreme Court lawyer said that withdrawal of general consent means CBI does not have the general consent of a state government, it is required to apply for consent on a case-by-case basis and cannot act before the consent is given.

“However CBI can continue to investigate cases in a state registered prior to the withdrawal of general consent. In July 2022, the Calcutta High Court, in a case of illegal coal mining and cattle smuggling being investigated by the CBI, ruled that the central agency cannot be stopped from investigating a Central government employee in another state,” said Singh.

“In its order, the High Court observed that corruption cases across the country must be treated equally and that Central government employees could not be exempted from an investigation on the grounds that their offices were located in states that have withdrawn general consent. The judgment also said that withdrawal of general consent and its ramifications would be applicable in cases where exclusively state government employees were involved,” he added.

This order, however, has been challenged in the Supreme Court, where the matter is still pending. Hence, as it stands, the CBI can use the Calcutta High Court order to its advantage to carry on certain investigations until the order is struck down by the Supreme Court.

Gurmeet Nehra, legal scholar and member of the Supreme Court Bar Association said that CBI can approach the local court of that state for issuing a search warrant and it can register a case in Delhi and proceed with the investigation.

SC verdict on pleas for independent mechanism to appoint EC on Thursday

New Delhi, March 1 (IANS) The Supreme Court will deliver judgment on Thursday on a batch of petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of Election Commissioners (ECs) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

A constitution bench, headed by Justice K.M. Joseph and comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar had reserved judgment in the matter on November 24, 2022. According to the cause list, two judgments, each by Justices Joseph and Rastogi, will be pronounced at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday in the matter.

During the arguments, Attorney General R. Venkataramani had told the Supreme Court that if it were to begin to doubt every step taken by the government in the process of appointment of the Election Commissioner, then it has implications on the integrity and independenceA of the institution.

The five-judge constitution bench, headed by Justice Joseph, had then shot a volley of questions at the country’s top law officer in connection with the appointment of Election Commissioner Arun Goel. It posed some critical questions to the AG in connection with Goel’s appointment: what deliberation could have been done to finalise his name within 24 hours, same-day clearance, same day process completed, and the appointment was made not even in 24 hours.

The Centre had, however, maintained that there is no trigger point for the Supreme Court to interfere in the appointment process of the Election Commissioner.

After hearing detailed arguments, the Supreme Court reserved the judgment on a batch of petitions seeking a collegium-like system for the appointment of the ECs and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC).

During the hearing, the Supreme Court had told the Centre that it wants to see the files relating to the recent appointment of Goel as the Election Commissioner and emphasised that it wants to see by what mechanism, “he was picked up”, and “there is no danger to produce it (files)”.