Indira Jaising, Tushar Mehta in war of words after SG seeks reconsideration of senior designation verdict

The Supreme Court was on Monday privy to war of words between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising after the latter objected to Mehta's intervention in the senior designation case..Jaising took particular objection to the fact that Mehta had not filed any application or petition challenging the judgment rendered by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on her petition in 2017, by which the present procedure of conferring senior designations was put in place.SG Mehta sought changes to the current procedure being followed by the Supreme Court which was in tune with the 2017 judgment of the top court.“If Mr. Mehta wants changes, let him file an application in writing. Since when does this court entertain oral applications?” Jaising asked. She further criticised Mehta’s approach, questioning the lack of adherence to procedure in his submission. “What I don’t understand is how the Solicitor General can walk into the court and make demands without a written application. Is there no procedure established by law in this courtroom? If I walked in and did the same, would your lordships allow it? You would not,” Jaising said. She also questioned Mehta, asking him who he was representing. Mehta then said that he was appearing for the Union government."I am appearing on behalf of the Union of India in a matter in which this issue has arisen," he said."I insist that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta file an application stating the problem he finds with this designation system," Jaising said..The Bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih was hearing a case concerning senior designations. The present case before the apex court stemmed from a convict's plea seeking remission in a kidnapping case.During the hearing of that matter, the Court had taken up the larger issue of false pleadings being signed off by AoRs after finding that the pleadings in the convict's appeal suppressed certain facts.The Court had then said it would hear the matter on three aspects - the AoR system, senior designation and the convict's remission..When the matter was taken up today, SG Mehta called for a relook at the existing system of designating lawyers as Senior Advocates. Mehta argued that the current system does not always reflect judges’ opinions on candidates due to informal pressures within the legal fraternity. Pertinently, he batted for bringing back the system of full court voting by secret ballot. After the 2017 judgment, secret ballot is resorted to only when absolutely necessary."The full court must have a duty to vote by secret ballot," Mehta stated."This has been rejected by the court (in its 2017 judgment)," Jaising retorted.The Bench too prima facie agreed with Jaising."Normally, there shouldn’t be a secret ballot. That’s what the Court says (in the 2017 judgment," Justice AS Oka said."That again requires reconsideration," the SG maintained."There should be a rule that it will be voted upon. Your lordships’ views about a candidate must be reflected. Sometimes the views are not capable of being reflected due to various reasons, such as fraternity, etc," Mehta argued.Jaising staunchly opposed the idea."This is something I will contest till my last breath. He wants to scrap the entire judgment. He is essentially asking to scrap the entire judgment that laid down this system. The current system is objective. If Mr. Mehta thinks otherwise, he must explain what’s not working. It’s not my responsibility, nor that of SCAORA or SCBA, to fix this," she submitted.Let him file a review application in writing, Jaising added."I understand that I cannot orally ask for the judgment to be modified. But this is a case where the real question has arisen," the SG said.The Bench assured Jaising that it is aware of its limitations in hearing the matter since its a Division Bench and the 2017 judgment was rendered by a three-judge Bench. "We assure you that we are conscious of the limitations. At the highest, what we can do is record our concerns and place it before the Chief Justice to refer it to a larger bench," the Court made it clear.Mehta concurred."That is my prayer," he said.Jaising said that she has no objection to that but the same has to be in writing and the SG cannot simply walk into the Court and make arguments.The SG took objection to Jaising's arguments."I am not just a stranger walking into this court," he said."You are a stranger walking in," Jaising maintained.The Court said that it also has certain concerns over the Senior designation process and at the most, it might refer the matter to a larger Bench after hearing all parties."We are telling you that these are our concerns. We are exercising our power to express our concerns and, if necessary, refer them to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench. Take it as our concern. We will ignore what the Solicitor General has said," Justice Oka remarked.