Chief Justice’s Stern Warning to President of Lawyers’ Body: “Don’t Make Me…”

During today’s hearing on electoral bonds, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Adish Aggarwala, encountered a stern response from Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud. Aggarwala had sought a suo motu review of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment that invalidated the electoral bonds scheme and ordered the State Bank of India to disclose all details of political funding through bonds.

In response to Aggarwala’s mention of the matter, Chief Justice Chandrachud rebuked him, stating, “Apart from being a senior counsel, you are the president of SCBA. You have written a letter invoking my suo motu powers. These are all publicity-related matters, and we will not engage with them. Do not compel me to say more. It would be distasteful.”

Also Read: Gurdas Maan Visits Family of Late Sidhu Moosewala Following Birth of Son: ‘Parents Find Solace in New Arrival’

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta distanced himself from Aggarwala’s request, stating, “We do not support this.”

Earlier, Aggarwala had sparked controversy by writing to President Droupadi Murmu, urging her to seek a presidential reference of the Supreme Court’s judgment on electoral bonds.

The Supreme Court Bar Association disassociated itself from Aggarwala’s views, clarifying that members of the panel had not authorized him to write to the President.

Also Read: Putin Issues Warning of World War 3 in First Comments Following Landslide Victory

A resolution issued by the bar association’s Secretary Rohit Pandey condemned Aggarwala’s actions, viewing them as an attempt to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court. The resolution emphasized that the letter appears to have been written by Aggarwala in his capacity as Chairman of the All India Bar Association, not as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

In his letter to the President, Aggarwala expressed concerns about revealing the names of corporations contributing to political parties, fearing potential victimization. He argued against giving retrospective effect to the judgment, stating that it could tarnish the nation’s reputation internationally.