Tribune News Service
New Delhi, November 11
Supreme Court Bar Association President Dushyant Dave has questioned the urgent listing of Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami’s petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s order denying him interim bail in an abetment to suicide case by the Supreme Court Registry.
In a letter addressed to the Supreme Court Secretary General, Dave asked if there was any special direction from Chief Justice of India SA Bobde to urgently list all cases filed by Goswami.
“While thousands of citizens remain in jails, languishing for long periods while their matters before the Supreme Court are not getting listed for weeks and months, it is, to say the least, deeply disturbing, how and why every time Mr Goswami approaches the Supreme Court, his matter gets listed instantly. Is there any special Order or Direction from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and the Master of the Roaster in this regard?” Dave asked.
“It is quite well known that such extraordinarily urgent listings of matters cannot and does not take place without specific orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Or is it that as the Administrative Head you or the Registrar listing is giving special preference to Shri Goswami?” Dave wrote.
Arnab’s petition is listed for hearing before a Vacation Bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud on Wednesday.
Questioning Dave’s “selective outrage”, Goswami’s wife Samyabrata Ray Goswami
wrote to the Supreme Court Secretary General, pointing out that cases filed by senior journalist Vinod Dua and activist-lawyer Prashant Bhushan were also listed urgently. In another instance, a case filed on behalf of historian Romila Thapar was listed for hearing the same day in August last year, she wrote.
“When I read Dave’s letter, I am shocked and horrified at the extent to which certain vested interests are at work. Neither do I know Shri Dave nor have I ever met him. However, the selective targeting of my husband’s petition by Shri Dave will have to be opposed by me given his silence on other matters which were taken up by this Hon’ble Supreme Court in its wisdom with urgency in the past,” she wrote.
She alleged that Dave’s letter was contemptuous as “it tends to interfere with administration of justice.”