Bar President, Gujarat High Court Chief Justice bury the hatchet after spat

Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) President Brijesh J Trivedi on Monday straightened things out after a heated exchange between the two recently seemed to widen fault lines between the Bar and the Bench. .The contentious incident on January 17 saw Brijesh Trivedi accusing the Chief Justice of being an 'overspeaking judge' (alluding to a quote by Lord Francis Bacon) whom every lawyer had been 'tolerating'.The Chief Justice in turn accused Trivedi of attempting to browbeat the Court and criticised his conduct in an order passed on the same day. .On Monday, the Chief Justice said that the issue must be put to an end and emphasised that being a constitutional court, better conduct is expected of members of both the Bar and the Bench of the High Court. "Let us put an end to this issue. These types of matters should not engage the precious judicial time of the Court and should not bother the Court at all. We are a constitutional court, we are required to engage at a different level both as a judge and as a lawyer. For a court like Gujarat High Court, people look towards this Court, its lawyers, its judges. We can set an example for the country but we are indulging in these petty issues. We have to rise much above our own personal prejudices and biases. And when I say personal biases, I mean that for all. Lawyers are as much part of this institution and I try to convey this at every moment. We cannot run the institution without the assistance of the lawyers. So let us put an end to this," the Chief Justice said. Trivedi then expressed his regret over the incident as well saying, "I regret what happened on the 17th.".The exchange which occurred while the Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to the issue of illegal constructions, saw Trivedi criticising the Chief Justice saying that she never allows lawyers to complete arguments.He also took exception to the Chief Justice "looking elsewhere" while he was arguing, when she rested her head against the chair while looking up. Trivedi urged the Bench to adjourn the matter and place the case before another Bench. He later left the courtroom before the matter concluded. In its order passed in the matter on the same day, the Court said,"The conduct demonstrated by Mr. Brijesh Trivedi shows his utter disrespect towards the institution and his attitude which is not only unworthy of becoming an elected President of the Advocates’ Association but also unbecoming of an Advocate of the highest Court of the State.".On January 20, the Advocate General along with a group of senior advocates approached the Chief Justice-led bench and expressed regret over the incident involving Brijesh Trivedi.However, a group of lawyers took exception to the move, alleging that the AG and the senior advocates who spoke to the Chief Justice on Monday had not spoken to members of the Bar to assess their collective stand.The GHCAA subsequently called an Extraordinary General Body Meeting where it passed a resolution stating that the Bar did not approve of the interaction..On Monday, when the PIL was taken up by the bench of Chief Justice Agarwal and Justice Pankaj Trivedi, several other senior members of the Bar were present in Court along with Trivedi.Senior Advocates Bhaskar Tanna and Yatin Oza expressed their desire to put a quietus to the entire matter in the larger interest of the relationship between the Bar and the Bench. They also informed the Court that an application has been filed to recall the order passed on January 17 in which the Court made the observations against Trivedi..Chief Justice Agarwal said that the the Court was forced to make the observations as Trivedi had done two things which were unacceptable - he had asked a judge to recuse herself and he left the courtroom without the permission of the Bench."If senior members of the Bar, especially the Bar president is doing it, what message does it convey? Especially when it happens in the Court of the Chief Justice. If you can bully the Chief Justice, you can bully any court," she said.The Chief Justice pointed out that she too was a lawyer for over 20 years before being elevated to the Bench and as such, she can understand that emotions can sometimes run high. However, Trivedi had crossed the line with his statements, she said. "This is about the dignity and majesty of this Court. Everyone here has the responsibility and power to either to put this institution down or bring it down. This institution has given us so much, we owe it a lot. Whatever stance we take, it is not for personal reasons...Being the head of the institution, there is a lot more accountability on my part to take decisions that are in the best interest of the institution," Chief Justice Agarwal said. She also stated on January 17, the Bench was merely stating that would it dispose of the matter by directing authorities to take decisions on the illegal constructions on a case by case basis. She added that the Court refused to grant an adjournment because it was a PIL filed in 2011 and that its proposed direction seemed to be in line with what all parties requested. Trivedi agreed that an order of that nature was perfectly acceptable to his client and expressed regret over the incident as well.The Court ultimately decided to add a sentence to its judgment making it clear that as the counsel had expressed his regret, the observations against him in the January 17 order stand expunged.