Free Press Journal

Lawyers object to Kapil Sibal’s appearance as advocate in CJI Dipak Misra impeachment case

FOLLOW US:

Opposition parties' press conferencePTI Photo by Kamal Singh

New Delhi: Two lawyers today opposed in the Supreme Court the appearance of senior advocate Kapil Sibal in the plea filed by two Congress MPs challenging the rejection of impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra by the Rajya Sabha Chairman.

When the hearing began before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice A K Sikri, a lawyer objected to Sibal’s appearance in the case, saying the senior advocate was also a signatory to the impeachment notice.

“My basic objection is on Kapil Sibal appearing as a lawyer in the matter as he was a signatory to the impeachment notice,” advocate R P Luthra told the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and A K Goel.


He also referred to a Bar Council of India resolution and said Sibal cannot appear in the matter as he was a signatory to the impeachment notice.

“That we will see,” Justice Sikri told the lawyer.

“He (Luthra) has raised an objection. We are not saying anything. We leave it to you (Sibal),” the bench told Sibal, who said if the bench felt that he should not appear in the matter, then he would not.

At the fag end of the hearing, advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay also raised objection on Sibal’s appearance, saying Members of Parliament who are signatories to the impeachment notice cannot appear as a lawyer in the matter.

Upadhyay also cited the Bar Council resolution barring MPs who had signed the impeachment notice from practising before that particular court and said in a similar matter seeking ban on parliamentarians from practising in court, the apex court has issued notice.

To this, Justice Sikri asked Upadhyay whether mere issuance of notice meant that the court has delivered its verdict. Justice Mishra also questioned Upadhyay whether anyone could bar Members of Parliament from practising in the courts. Upadhyay replied that the Bar Council of India can ban them.