New Delhi: The Bombay high court on Thursday, June 3, took exception to a lawyer writing an opinion piece in a newspaper criticising the handling of the bail plea of Father Stan Swamy by the court, and instead asked lawyers to repose faith in the judiciary.A bench headed by Justice S.S. Shinde, while hearing Hany Babu’s interim medical bail plea in relation to the Bhima-Koregaon case, instructed lawyers not to write opinion pieces in cases in which they appear. Both Hany Babu and Stan Swamy are undertrials in the case.Dramatic scenes were witnessed at the court on Thursday when Justice Shinde brought up the opinion piece written by advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry’s junior Payoshi Roy in the Indian Express on May 27. Justice Shinde said if Chaudhry and his associate felt that they would succeed in matters by writing articles in the newspapers, it was not right.“If you don’t have faith in the system, why approach the court?” he curtly told Chaudhry.To this Chaudhry hit back strongly, defending his associate’s writings on the case, and also pointed out that neither he nor his associate ever represented Swamy. He also insisted that the writings would continue in addition to seeking relief from the court in the case.“If I am writing articles while arguing the same matter, then I or anyone from my chamber will rightly stand rebuked,” he said, pointing out that courts can be criticised for their decisions.In response, Justice Shinde said that he was not against the freedom of speech, but reminded Chaudhry that the matter concerning Swamy’s bail plea was sub-judice. He also said Chaudhry may not have represented Swamy, but most of the Bhima-Koregaon case matters were on a similar footing.Also read: ‘I’d Like to Be With My Own,’ Stan Swamy Tells Bombay HC as His Health DeterioratesShinde also drew attention to the fact that Chaudhry and his associates were representing three other accused in the same case, and it would not be appropriate for them to comment on a sub-judice matter.While stating that he believed in the freedom of speech, Shinde said, “Why come before us if you don’t have faith in us? So many matters regarding freedom of speech and expression, which we have heard and allowed. Keep faith in us and in the system. We are here to do justice, unafraid of anyone.”Chaudhry retorted by saying,” It is only because we have faith in the court that we come to the court. But sometimes, the court lets down the faith we have in it.”To this Justice Shinde reminded Chaudhry that it was a bench led by him that the granted interim medical bail to Varavara Rao, another accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case.The opinion piece in question The opinion piece which led to the dramatic exchange between the judge and lawyer was written by Payoshi Roy on May 27 in the Indian Express after the Bombay high court refused to consider Swamy’s plea for interim bail.Writing in this context, Roy severely criticised the judiciary’s handling of Swamy’s plea, who is 84-year-old and is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, which does not allow him to hold a spoon, write, walk or bathe. Therefore, Roy said:“There is no utility in keeping Swamy incarcerated, only cruelty. The refusal to convert incarceration to house arrest does not square with the recent Supreme Court judgment extolling the virtues of house arrest in mitigating the rigours of incarceration on the ailing. Despite this compelling case for bail, the court denied relief. One is forced to ask, what is the power of the prosecution’s unproven allegations that blinds the court to compelling reason and judicial conscience?Courts have been at their weakest and most deferential to the executive in cases of terrorism and national security. The Bhima Koregaon case seems to have become a byword for political victimisation.”Meanwhile, Swamy tested positive for COVID-19 on May 27. When a bench led by Justice Shinde heard the matter on May 28, it directed Taloja jail authorities to shift Swamy to a private hospital for 15 days. Swamy is currently being treated for COVID-19 at a private hospital.Hany Babu’s bail pleaOn the other hand, the division bench of Justice Shinde allowed Hany Babu to be moved to a private facility from Breach Candy Hospital, where he was moved when he contracted COVID-19.Although Shinde initially refused Chaudhry’s plea to let Babu be under house arrest, he accepted that Babu can be at a private facility until June 15, when his bail plea filed by his wife will be heard. The court also asked the Breach Candy Hospital authorities to file a report on Babu’s health condition by June 14.
