HinduPost is the voice of Hindus. Support us. Protect Dharma

Will you help us hit our goal?

HinduPost is the voice of Hindus. Support us. Protect Dharma
28.8 C
Sunday, May 28, 2023

How CJI Chandrachud handled hearings in Manish Kashyap and Md. Zubair cases

Judiciary has been considered an important pillar of our democracy. It is said that Judiciary has so much power that it can influence the other aspects of democracy, such as the Executive, Legislature, and even Media. However, with power comes responsibility, but this is where the judiciary fails as it has assumed unprecedented power, but it lacks the responsibility, and its highly biased acts are only making matters worst.

Our current CJI is known as woke and liberal, he has been widely criticized for having a highly biased perception of burning issues. He has shown an utter display of biased justice in his recent cases.

One such case is of Bihar’s journalist Manish Kashyap, who has been arrested by Tamilnadu police and an NSA has been slapped on him. He is not a celebrity and nor has the battery of renowned lawyers, whereas on the other hand the petitioner in the other case, i.e. Mohd. Zubair has become a big celebrity, who availed the service of renowned lawyer Vrinda Grover.

Manish Kashyap’s plea was scheduled for hearing at the end of the day, after all the listed matters were disposed of. On the other hand, Zubair’s plea was allowed to be mentioned in the middle of proceeding of a listed matter.

Advocate of Tamil Nadu govt, Sanjay Hegde lied to the bench that, Manish Kashyap was in police custody whereas he is still in judicial custody. Unfortunately, based upon this lie, CJI Chandrachud declined to give any interim protection.

In Mohd. Zubair’s case, SG Tushar Mehta was not allowed to record his objections. In case of Manish Kashyap, J. Chandrachud gave only one minute for hearing even though he was told, his hearing will take place at the end. His advocate waited for 6 hours to get heard only to find, J. Chandrachud was more eager to adjourn the hearing to 10th April.

In Mohd. Zubair’s case, not only his lawyer, Vrinda Grover, gate crashed in court room but cajoled J. Chandrachud into yielding. The CJI could not even ask her to mention her plea after all the listed matters on the board were dispposed of.

Chandrachud could offer only meek resistance to her. He heard her for one hour, while delaying hearing in listed matters. He read all the FIRs against Zubair and came to conclusion that all the FIRs were similar. On the other hand, the same CJI Chandrachud didn’t even read Manish Kashyap’s plea and adjourned the hearing. He granted no interim relief to Manish Kashyap, but he granted every relief, Mohd. Zubair’s lawyer Vrinda Grover asked for.

CJI Chandrachud was charitable with truth on one point in Manish Kashyap’s hearing. He said, that he could not say No to coercive action against Manish Kashyap since he was in police custody. However, more than a month ago, Congress spokesperson, Pawan Khera was arrested by Delhi police. Even after his arrest CJI Chandrachud, heard Pawan Khera’s case, out of turn. A new bench was formed to hear Pawan Khera’s case at the insistence of CJI ‘s close friend, Dr. A M Singhvi, who is a senior Congress leader.

JI Chandrachud heard Dr. Singhvi for 30 minutes, by disrupting his hearing of all the listed cases. An interim bail was granted to Pawan Khera, and Delhi Police was ordered to release him by the same evening.

In conclusion, I can say, that J. Chandrachud posses a very weak character. He can’t stand up for his own principles, he goes out of way to help celebrity litigants and celebrity lawyers. He does not accord, same privilege to ordinary litigants or not well known lawyers.

(This article has been compiled from the tweet thread posted by @JMehta65 on April 7, 2023, with minor edits to improve readability and conform to HinduPost style guide)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram &  YouTube. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Related Articles

Web Desk
Web Desk
Content from other publications, blogs and internet sources is reproduced under the head 'Web Desk'. Original source attribution and additional HinduPost commentary, if any, can be seen at the bottom of the article.


  1. Judiciary especially uchchtam nyayalay is inclined more towards tathakathit shantipriy samuday and provides them immediate relief whereas poor people who cannot afford lawyers like Kapil Sibbal Abhishek Manusinghvi Indira jaisingh etc are given immediate relief as is clear from the case of Jubair


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles

Sign up to receive HinduPost content in your inbox
Select list(s):

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.