SCBA Condemns Courtroom Disruption, Urges Judicial Respect

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has issued a strong resolution condemning the actions of an advocate who disrupted proceedings in the courtroom of Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai. Labeling the act as 'reprehensible', the Association expressed shock and dismay at what it described as a severe breach of courtroom decorum and professional ethics.

In its statement, the SCBA asserted that the advocate's conduct was not only inappropriate for a court officer but also posed a direct challenge to judicial independence. The Association emphasized that such actions erode public confidence in the justice system and threaten the critical respect underpinning the relationship between the Bench and the Bar.

The incident reportedly arose from reactions to Justice Gavai's comments on the Khajuraho Vishnu Idol Restoration case, where he advocated for cross-religious respect while dismissing misinterpretations. The SCBA noted these remarks were irresponsibly distorted on social media, fueling misinformation likely contributing to the courtroom outburst. Despite the provocation, Justice Gavai maintained his composure, executing his duties with dignity.

The SCBA applauded Justice Gavai's restraint, reaffirming its steadfast support for him and the judiciary. It warned against efforts to weaken the constitutional bond between the Bench and Bar, describing them as fundamental to the justice delivery system. It called on legal professionals to uphold secularism, fraternity, and the rule of law and to resist politicization of the judiciary's image.

The SCBA also criticized certain media outlets for sensationalizing the incident and distorting judicial statements, especially concerning the Khajuraho case. Labeling such reporting as 'predatory journalism', it accused it of inciting public outrage and undermining the Court's authority. The SCBA disclosed that the advocate in question holds only temporary Association membership, confirming disciplinary action is being considered. It reiterated that while freedom of expression is vital, it must be exercised responsibly, particularly by court officers. (ANI)