Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud paid a surprise visit to the Additional Building Complex (ABC) of the Supreme Court on Tuesday evening.

After finishing marathon hearings in a Constitution Bench matter, meetings with the Secretary General, Registrars and administrative work until 7:30 pm, the CJI paid a surprise visit to Block D of Additional Building Complex (ABC) at the Apex Court, to inspect the work in progress of public canteen.

CJI Chandrachud further inspected the work progress of consultation rooms and cubicles at Block E.

He walked up to the Advocates’ Chamber Block and interacted with an Advocate.

The Supreme Court Bar Association Executive Committee  has decided for holding a Special General Body Meeting on Thursday, March 16, at 4:00 PM on the Supreme Court Lawns for considering to pass a resolution for expressing solidarity with its President, the Senior Advocate Vikas Singh. 

Another point that the meeting was likely to consider would be a resolution seeking explanation from Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Neerak Kishan Kaul, who had apologised to the CJI for Singh’s statements in the Apex Court.

Last week, the Courtroom No. 1 of the Apex Court saw some heated exchange between CJI Chandrachud and SCBA President & Senior Advocate Vikas Singh.

The argument and verbal dialogue began soon after the SCBA president mentioned a case regarding land for lawyers’ chambers, and sought an urgent hearing.

The CJI agreed to list the case on March 17. Singh further sought that the case be listed as item number 1.

On March 2, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud had come down heavily on President of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Vikas Singh for repeated insistence on listing of the petition that sought a direction to the Ministry of Urban Development to convert the entire land measuring 1.33 acres that was allotted to the Supreme Court into chamber blocks for lawyers.

Senior Advocate Singh repeatedly insisted on urgent listing of the plea before a Bench led by the CJI, contending that the matter had not been listed for six previous hearings and the same happened today as well.

The CJI told Singh that it would be listed in the ordinary course, however, the SCBA chief threatened to escalate the matter and even suggested visiting the residence of the CJI over the same.

Justice Chandrachud then raised his voice and ordered Singh to leave the court immediately. He asserted that the Senior Advocate could not expect the Bench to be cowered down.

The CJI further said that he had never let himself be browbeaten by the Bar and would not let this happen in the final two years of his career. He then told Singh to pursue his ‘political agendas’ outside the court hall.

He further reminded Singh that the SCBA chief was asking for land allotted to the Supreme Court to be given to lawyers under Article 32. Justice Chandrachud then announced that the matter would be listed on March 17, but not as item one.

Soon after the incident, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Neeraj Kishan Kaul expressed regret over the heated exchange.

Sibal, who appeared before the Bench in another matter, apologised for Singh’s behaviour. He said he was sorry for what happened this morning, adding that the Bar should not transgress the limits of decorum.

The judges then shared that they hear over 70 mentionings every day. The CJI said that after hearing these mentionings, the Bench would sit though the evenings and give dates.

Senior Advocate Kaul said the Bar jointly apologised for the incident. He said the Bar was very very sad. It felt equally anguished and hurt by what happened in the morning, he added.

The Delhi High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) for constituting a team of experts for conducting surprise visits of colleges that lack infrastructure and facilities for teaching law.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ordered that the reports of the inspection should be uploaded on BCI’s website within one month of inspection. It added that incase it is found that the colleges lack minimal infrastructure then the council must take immediate steps to close such institutions.

The Court observed that this is a much-needed therapy that ought to be introduced to cure the maladies that legal education is suffering from.

The court said that it is about time that everyone including Senior Advocates, academicians and even former judges of the Supreme Court and High Court should take upon themselves the task of reforming the status of legal education in India.

Justice Singh who was dealing with a batch of petitions seeking direction to the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU) had to allocate 110 seats to the Ideal Institute of Management & Technology, one of its affiliated colleges, for BA LLB Five Years’ Integrated Course for Academic Sessions 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23.

The Institute however said to the court that BCI has granted approval for 120 seats since the academic session 2014-15

Although the permission is there yet the the university has refused to allocate 110 seats , it argued

The University said that the institute was not entitled to the strength of 110 students as it is holding classes in the basement.

BCI however stated that for an academic building of Centre of Legal Education, the infrastructure should have separate classrooms of 60 students for each section along with rooms for tutorial work, moot court room, common rooms for male and female students and adequate library or reading space.

After hearing the counsel for all sides,the court agreed that educational activities cannot be allowed to function in a basement which is otherwise allotted for parking purposes.

It also noted that Directorate of Higher Education (DHE) had granted the petitioner institute a No Objection Certificate (NOC) only for the admission of 85 students in the BA LLB course.

Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions with the direction to the respondents for maintaining status quo regarding already admitted students in previous academic sessions in compliance with its past orders.