Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday sharply reprimanded a lawyer who sought an urgent listing of a disproportionate assets case against Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, questioning whether the move was designed to attract media attention rather than to serve any genuine legal urgency. The exchange ended with the Chief Justice directing court staff to discontinue the live streaming of mentioning proceedings in the Supreme Court.
The episode took place during mentioning, the daily procedure through which lawyers request the listing of cases for hearing. The lawyer sought an early hearing in the disproportionate assets matter on the ground that Gandhi had recently claimed at a public event that he was in contact with 200 officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Chief Justice was unimpressed by the reasoning.
"There is no head, no tail to this mentioning," the Chief Justice remarked, taking exception to the grounds cited for seeking an early hearing. He then asked the lawyer pointedly, "Have you spoken to any news channel for this?" According to reports of the hearing, he added that the lawyer only wanted to raise the matter for the sake of media attention.
The remarks reflected the court's evident suspicion that the mentioning was orchestrated for publicity rather than legal urgency, particularly because the case involves a prominent political figure.
The case itself has a history that explains why the court reacted as it did. It arises from a complaint filed by S. Vignesh Shishir, a Karnataka-based BJP worker, who alleged that Rahul Gandhi possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The matter reached the Allahabad High Court, which directed the CBI and the ED to verify the allegations.
Gandhi approached the Supreme Court challenging those directions. In August, the Supreme Court asked the Allahabad High Court to defer proceedings in the matter and restrained the central agencies from submitting any report to it. The top court also said that if any agency has knowledge of disproportionate assets belonging to any individual, it can proceed on its own, and the same does not require court orders.
Against that background, the attempt to secure an urgent listing on the basis of a remark made by Gandhi at a public event struck the bench as lacking both a clear basis and any substantive merit. The Supreme Court has already stayed the earlier order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter and has restrained the ED and CBI from filing reports before the High Court.
The lawyer's submission did not, in the court's view, disclose any new development that would justify jumping the queue.
The most consequential part of Tuesday's hearing may prove to be the direction that followed the rebuke. The Chief Justice orally instructed court staff to discontinue live streaming of the mentioning process henceforth. Mentioning proceedings are typically brief and procedural, with lawyers lining up to seek urgent listings, mention new matters or request early hearings.
They are not full hearings on the merits of a case, but they are often the first public airing of a matter, and in politically sensitive cases they can generate headlines before any substantive argument has been heard.
Live streaming of court proceedings was introduced in the Supreme Court as a measure of transparency, allowing citizens to watch the administration of justice in real time. It has been widely welcomed as a step towards openness, particularly in constitutional cases of public importance. But it has also created a new dynamic in which lawyers and litigants may be tempted to use mentioning, and other brief proceedings, as a platform for publicity.
The Chief Justice's direction appears aimed at curbing that tendency, at least in the mentioning process, by removing the live audience for what is meant to be an administrative exercise.
The move raises a broader question about the balance between transparency and the orderly conduct of proceedings. Supporters of live streaming argue that open courts are a cornerstone of public confidence in the judiciary, and that citizens have a right to see how their courts function. Critics, including some judges, have worried that cameras can change behaviour in the courtroom, encouraging grandstanding and turning procedural moments into performances.
Tuesday's direction suggests that the current Chief Justice is alive to the second concern, and is prepared to act on it where he believes the process is being used for purposes other than the administration of justice.
The disproportionate assets case itself remains pending, and Tuesday's hearing did not decide anything about its merits. The allegations made by the complainant have not been tested in a full hearing, and the Supreme Court's earlier orders mean that the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court remain on hold.
What Tuesday's hearing did decide, in practical terms, is that the case will not be fast-tracked on the basis put forward by the lawyer, and that the mentioning process will no longer be live-streamed.
The episode also illustrates a recurring feature of high-profile litigation in India: the interplay between the courtroom and the media cycle. Cases involving senior political leaders attract intense coverage, and every remark from the bench is reported and debated. Judges are aware of this, and their remarks often carry a message beyond the immediate case.
In this instance, the message was directed not only at the lawyer concerned but at the wider practice of using mentioning for publicity. By asking whether the lawyer had consulted a news channel, the Chief Justice was signalling that the court will look sceptically at attempts to convert procedural applications into news events.
For lawyers, the direction on live streaming is a practical change that will affect daily practice. Mentioning will continue, but without a live audience. Lawyers who wish to have a matter listed urgently will still be able to make their case to the bench, but they will do so without the immediate public exposure that live streaming provided. Whether the change is extended to other kinds of proceedings remains to be seen, but for now it is confined to the mentioning process.
For the public, the episode is a reminder that the Supreme Court's work is not confined to landmark judgments. Much of its daily business consists of procedural decisions, case management and the regulation of its own processes. Those decisions shape how justice is delivered, and how the court protects itself from being drawn into political controversy.
The Chief Justice's intervention on Tuesday was, in that sense, as much about the integrity of the court's processes as it was about any single case.
The disproportionate assets matter will return to the court in due course, through the ordinary process of listing. When it does, it will be heard on its merits, with both sides given an opportunity to argue. Until then, the court's message is clear: urgency must be demonstrated, not asserted, and the courtroom is not a platform for publicity.
(Reporting based on NDTV and IANS.)