New Delhi: Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud reprimanded senior advocate Mathews Nedumpara for causing interruptions during the NEET-UG petitions hearing in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Nedumpara disrupted the arguments presented by senior advocate Narender Hooda, who represented one of the petitioners.
“I have something to say,” Nedumpara interjected, cutting off Hooda’s argument.
Chief Justice Chandrachud instructed Nedumpara to speak after Hooda finished. However, Nedumpara, asserting his seniority, said, “I am the seniormost here.” This prompted the Chief Justice to warn him: “I am warning you. You will not speak to the gallery. I am in charge of the court. Call the security… have him removed.” Nedumpara responded that he was already leaving, to which the Chief Justice replied, “You do not have to say that. You can leave. I have seen judiciary for the last 24 years. I cannot let lawyers dictate procedure in this court.” Nedumpara retorted, “I have seen it since 1979.” The Chief Justice cautioned that he might have to issue a directive if Nedumpara persisted.
Also Read: Need to develop law, legal education in vernacular languages: CJI [Read Speech]
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the National Testing Agency (NTA) in the hearing, also condemned Nedumpara’s conduct, calling it “contemptuous.”
Later, Nedumpara issued a statement saying, “I forgive Your Lordships for the humiliation meted out to me for you do not know what you have done.”
This incident is not the first clash between Nedumpara and Chief Justice Chandrachud. In March, during the hearing of the electoral bonds case, Nedumpara interrupted despite warnings. The Chief Justice had told him, “Don’t shout at me. This is not a Hyde Park corner meeting, you are in the court. You want to move an application, file an application. You have got my decision as Chief Justice, we are not hearing you. If you want to file an application, move it on the email. That’s the rule in this court.”
In 2019, the Supreme Court found Nedumpara guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to three months in jail for alleging preferential treatment in awarding ‘senior advocate’ designations. The court later suspended his sentence after he tendered an unconditional apology.
