NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday rebuked a Congress chief for demanding “without a shred of evidence” an impartial probe against State Bank of India and Life Insurance Corporation for investing enormous quantities in Adani group shares and struggling substantial losses within the meltdown of group shares, following the Hindenburg report.
In a spontaneous response to advocate Varun Thakur’s plea on behalf of petitioner Jaya Thakur, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated irresponsible calls for have been being made with out proof and with out realising its influence on the nation’s financial system.
CJI Chandrachud stated, “As lawyers, when you argue a case, please be responsible for the nature of submissions before the court. You are asking the court, without a shred of evidence, to direct investigations against SBI and LIC? Do you realise the impact of the direction which you are seeking? “Is this some debate in school or are you making submissions in court docket? Do you realise the influence of investigations directed by the Supreme Court against SBI and LIC? Do you realise the influence it is going to have on the soundness of our monetary markets? Surely, the counsel should train some duty, whereas making submissions.”
Thakur attempted to draw the court’s attention to the petitioner’s submissions. Brushing it aside, the CJI-led bench said, “There is completely no materials furnished by you and you might be seeking a probe against SBI and LIC. Some duty must be exercised by petitioners of their pleadings and submissions by their counsel.”
In a spontaneous response to advocate Varun Thakur’s plea on behalf of petitioner Jaya Thakur, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated irresponsible calls for have been being made with out proof and with out realising its influence on the nation’s financial system.
CJI Chandrachud stated, “As lawyers, when you argue a case, please be responsible for the nature of submissions before the court. You are asking the court, without a shred of evidence, to direct investigations against SBI and LIC? Do you realise the impact of the direction which you are seeking? “Is this some debate in school or are you making submissions in court docket? Do you realise the influence of investigations directed by the Supreme Court against SBI and LIC? Do you realise the influence it is going to have on the soundness of our monetary markets? Surely, the counsel should train some duty, whereas making submissions.”
Thakur attempted to draw the court’s attention to the petitioner’s submissions. Brushing it aside, the CJI-led bench said, “There is completely no materials furnished by you and you might be seeking a probe against SBI and LIC. Some duty must be exercised by petitioners of their pleadings and submissions by their counsel.”
