scorecardresearch
Clear all
Search

COMPANIES

No Data Found

NEWS

No Data Found
Sign in Subscribe
Subrata Roy's high five team of lawyers under fire

Subrata Roy's high five team of lawyers under fire

Roy is being represented by senior lawyers Ram Jethmalani, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Aryama Sundaram, Ravi Shankar Prasad and Rajeev Dhavan and all of them are arguing for him.

Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy outside Supreme Court in a file PTI photo Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy outside Supreme Court in a file PTI photo

Sahara Group chief Subrata Roy's high-profile legal team, which has been making desperate efforts for a month to get him out of Tihar Jail, was caught unawares on Thursday when the Supreme Court (SC) questioned how five lawyers are arguing for one petitioner when rules permit only two.

Related Articles

Roy is in Tihar Jail since March 4.

"Supreme Court rules permit only a maximum of two lawyers per party. Here we are seeing five lawyers have signed the vakalatnama (document which authorises a lawyer to represent a person) and are arguing for him. How is it being done?" a Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Khehar asked Roy's lawyers.

Roy is being represented by senior lawyers Ram Jethmalani, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Aryama Sundaram, Ravi Shankar Prasad and Rajeev Dhavan and all of them are arguing for him.

Though the Bench asked the question with a serious tone, it soon gave an impression that it was in a lighter vein as it did not ask Roy to reduce his team's strength.

Supreme Court Bar Association president P.H. Parekh, who was present in the courtroom, told MAIL TODAY: "Yes, the Supreme Court rules say this. But it is not very rigid and is flexible depending on the nature of the case and number of related petitions involved."

The lawyers were in for further jibes when the Judges, unusually hearing a petition challenging their own order to send Roy to Tihar Jail, asked each lawyer if their petition is for enforcing a fundamental right habeus corpus (to produce an illegally detained person in court) or for "rectifying an error" caused by the Bench (when there is a dispute whether the same Bench had an "inherent power") or whether a review plea should have been filed.

The Bench noted that three opinions had emerged from the five lawyers prompting the Judges to say that they have found "three inconsistent views".

In association with Mail Today

Published on: Apr 04, 2014, 1:39 PM IST
×
Advertisement