The Gujarat High Court on Friday witnessed an unprecedented exchange between Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Advocate Brijesh J Trivedi, President of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association, during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning illegal constructions.
The altercation began when Chief Justice Agarwal interrupted Advocate Trivedi’s arguments to pose a question. Trivedi, representing the petitioner, alleged that the Chief Justice frequently interrupts lawyers, including Senior Advocates, denying them an opportunity to fully present their cases.
“I am not creating a scene, it is the other way round, with utmost respect,” Trivedi retorted during the heated exchange. He further accused the Chief Justice of being an “overspeaking judge,” alluding to a quote by Lord Francis Bacon on judicial decorum.
The tension escalated when Chief Justice Agarwal, addressing Trivedi, stated:
“Please don’t raise finger towards the Court.”
Trivedi denied any disrespect, stating:
“Where is the question of raising finger to Court?”
The clash reached its peak when Trivedi requested the Chief Justice to recuse herself and assign the matter to a different bench, alleging bias in her demeanor:
“This is not the manner in which your ladyship should behave, looking somewhere else. My request is to release the matter.”
Amid repeated interruptions, Trivedi also pointed out the Chief Justice’s body language, stating:
“Your ladyship is looking somewhere at the sky, this has never happened in this Hon’ble Court in 65 years.”
Chief Justice Agarwal defended the bench’s conduct, asserting:
“The Bench will not permit creating a scene in the courtroom.”
Trivedi responded by highlighting the significance of courtroom behavior being captured on video and its implications for judicial decorum. He ultimately exited the courtroom but not before reiterating his concerns over the Chief Justice’s approach.
The dramatic courtroom episode has sparked a debate within legal circles about judicial conduct and courtroom decorum, underscoring the delicate balance between judicial authority and professional advocacy.
