CJI Surya Kant issues stern warning to lawyer over Ambani

In a sharp courtroom exchange, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on February 23 firmly rebuked advocate Mathews J Nedumpara for drawing a comparison between the alleged delay in registering his plea on judicial appointments and the listing of cases involving corporate groups such as Reliance and Adani.

“Be careful 100 times when you speak in my court,” the CJI warned, as tempers briefly flared during the mentioning hour — the window when lawyers seek urgent listings before the court.

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was informed by Nedumpara that his petition concerning the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) had not even been scrutinized by the Supreme Court Registry.

“The NJAC matter, which I mentioned earlier, the Registry has not even scrutinized so far,” the lawyer submitted.

The CJI, however, dismissed the allegation. “There is no such matter,” he said, cautioning the counsel against “creating unnecessary issues”.

Flashpoint over corporate case reference

The exchange escalated when Nedumpara remarked that Constitution Benches were being constituted for matters concerning “Adani, Ambani and all,” suggesting such listings affected the court’s normal functioning. “Unlike Ambani, these are issues concerning the public at large. We are all concerned,” he argued.

The comment did not go down well with the bench.

Incidentally, the Chief Justice had recently fixed a schedule for hearing an arbitration dispute involving the Reliance Group, arising from a Delhi High Court judgment in the KG Basin gas migration case.

Responding sharply, the CJI reminded Nedumpara of his conduct in court. “You have seen me in Chandigarh, you have seen me in Delhi. I am just putting a word of warning to you… Don’t think that because you have been misbehaving in the past, (you) will be able to do with me,” he said.

When the lawyer insisted he was merely seeking listing of his case, the CJI reiterated: “I am just warning you. That’s all.” He further added, “Before that, you will understand at least how to conduct in my court.”

The NJAC backdrop

The controversy traces back to the Supreme Court’s landmark October 16, 2015 judgment, which struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, as unconstitutional. The ruling restored the Collegium system of judicial appointments.

Since then, Nedumpara has repeatedly sought to reopen the issue, challenging the Collegium mechanism before the apex court.

In September 2024, the Supreme Court Registry declined to register one such petition, stating that the issues raised had already been “elaborately covered” and conclusively settled by the 2015 Constitution Bench judgment. The Registry noted that the fresh plea substantially replicated matters that had been “put to rest”.

The recent exchange underscores the continuing sensitivity around judicial appointments — and the court’s firm stance on maintaining decorum, even amid persistent attempts to revisit settled constitutional questions.