Justice DY Chandrachud, who is next in line to become the Chief Justice of India, has been accused of benefitting his son by a complainant named Rashid Khan Pathan.
In a letter, the President of ‘Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association’ alleged that Justice Chandrachud passed orders in a case where his son Abhinav Chandrachud appeared as a lawyer before the Bombay High Court.
“Having perceived an adverse atmosphere and having realized that their plan to commit extortion is failed, all the accused including Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud hatched a further conspiracy to exert pressure upon the other Petitioners & also upon the High Court,” Pathan claimed.
Lawyer RK Pathan accused Justice Chandrachud of passing orders to help his son’s client https://t.co/LdGfnUPXDK
— iMac_too (@iMac_too) October 8, 2022
The case relates to an extortion case where Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud is the counsel of the accused named Sagar Suryavanshi and Sheetal Tejwani. In this case, Sagar Suryavanshi had filed an intervention petition in relation to several other similar FIRs by making her a complainant, but it was rejected by the High Court, the letter says.
The complainant in the letter says that this petition was bogus as it was based on the false claim that there is one application filed by the state for vacating the stay granted to the Petitioners and that the Bombay High Court is not hearing the said application. The complaint says that actually there is no application filed by the state and the state has not approached the Supreme Court. But despite that, the matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court bench of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and he passed an order on a non-existent applicant, the letter further alleged.
The letter says, “On 29.11.2021 the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of accused Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. Then as a part of a pre-planned conspiracy, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud without hearing the Counsel for the state and without issuing any notice to the other parties straightaway passed a blatantly illegal order regarding a non-existent application allegedly filed by the state. This was done to serve the ulterior purposes of his son and other syndicates of the mastermind extortionist accused Sagar Suryawanshi”.
According to the complaint against the Supreme Court judge, Justice Chandrachud was disqualified to hear any case where his son is representing any of the parties. While accusing the Supreme Court Judge of conflict of interest, the complainant said, “But then also he heard the matter and passed the order beneficial to his son’s client. This is an offence under sections 166, 219, 409, 120(B), 34 & 52, etc., of the Indian Penal Code.”
Pathan further alleged that the future Chief Justice violated settled principles of law while disposing of a petition, challenging restrictions on the movement of those who were not vaccinated against Covid-19. He also accused Justice Chandrachud of providing ‘wrongful profits’ to the tune of crores to vaccine companies.
Complainant Rashid Khan Pathan has also asked CJI U.U. Lalit not to recommend the name of Justice DY Chandrachud as the next chief justice of India.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Judge also has been accused of possessing a US Green card. A Twitter user named Indra Vajra made the allegation on the micro-blogging platform and asked, “Is it not a clear case of conflict of interest?”
Bar and Bench, in a fact-check, claimed that the allegation was false and that Justice DY Chandrachud is an Indian citizen. Recently the apex court Judge courted controversy after excerpts of his judgment in the 2018 adultery case went viral on social media.
“Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that a married woman can make her own sexual choices. By marrying, she has not consented to refrain from sexual relations outside of marriage without the permission of her husband. A husband is not the owner of his wife’s sexuality,” a report by The Hindu from September 2018 has been doing the rounds of social media.
Sri Sri Feminist Justice #Chandrachud struck down Adultery law saying married woman has sexual autonomy to have sex outside of marriage
— Deepika Narayan Bhardwaj (@DeepikaBhardwaj) October 4, 2022
Would have been nice if he said in some judgment that a married man also has right to financial autonomy to not spend on a dead marriage pic.twitter.com/OEaUgKfic9
In July this year, Supreme Court Justice DY Chandrachud admonished critics of the Indian Judiciary. “I recently read a news article saying the Supreme court is delaying the hearing in the matter (of violence against Christians). Give us a break!” he said.
“One of the judges was down with covid, that’s why we couldn’t hear it. There’s a limit to how much you can target judges”, Justice Chandrachud s.
Bar Council of India issues statement
In a statement, the Bar Council of India refuted the allegations against Justice Chandrachud and condemned ‘some people with vested interests’ for supposedly interfering with the administration of Justice and the functioning of the Judiciary.
Questioning the timing of the letter, the Bar Council remarked, “It is nothing but a scurrilous and malicious attempt to interfere with the functioning of Judiciary and the administration of Justice. Such growing tendency is really a matter of serious concern for the country and it has to be checked anyhow.”
It dismissed allegations of conflict of interest and said that the orders by the Supreme Court “do not show that Justice Chandrachud knew that his son had appeared in the matter before the High Court.
“This long letter is nothing, but a device to gain cheap popularity. This man has also defamed the litigants-mass of our country. This is also very sad. Such persons deserve strong penal and disciplinary action”, the Bar Council of India said.
While recommending disciplinary action against Rashid Khan Pathan, it said, “The country and the Indian Bar has complete faith in Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud. Hon’ble Dr Justice D. Y. Chandrachud is an asset for the world’s Judiciary and is known for his knowledge, honesty and integrity.”
The Council also appealed to Justice Chandrachud to ignore the letter and said that Judges are not under compulsion to defend their verdicts against ‘scandalous and baseless attacks’ from anti-institutional people.
