Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of Indira Jaising’s application concerning observations in the Judge Loya judgment. It recorded that the submission attributed to her about contempt notices to the Bombay High Court Administrative Committee was undisputed and reiterated in her application. It explained that the challenged comments on conduct referred to the petitioners and intervenors; counsel’s identification with an intervenor was a matter of perception. The request for Administrative Committee records was given up. The Court did not order expunction or reopen the underlying controversy.
Issues
- Whether observations concerning petitioners’ and intervenors’ conduct should be expunged or clarified as against their counsel.
- Whether the attributed submission was disputed and what remained of the request for High Court records.
Held
- The application sought expunction and clarification concerning observations in the 19 April 2018 judgment and initially sought records relating to a judicial transfer. The records prayer was given up during rejoinder after the State objected. (¶ 1–4)
- Paragraph 75 of the earlier judgment recorded the applicant’s submission that contempt notices should issue to the High Court Administrative Committee. That she had made the submission was not disputed; the application reiterated it. (¶ 5)
- The comments in paragraphs 76 and 78 concerned the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors. If counsel identified herself with the intervenor, that was a matter of her perception; the Court’s findings rested on the submissions made during the hearing. (¶ 6)
- The miscellaneous application was disposed of on that explanation, without an order expunging the observations, summoning the records or commencing contempt proceedings against the applicant. (¶ 4–7)
Result
Miscellaneous application disposed of with the stated explanation; no expunction or reopening ordered. The records prayer had been given up.