NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today refused to be dragged into a controversy over some tweets of senior activist lawyer Indira Jaising allegedly making certain remarks against judges who had delivered the March 20 verdict on the SC/ST Act.
A senior counsel who mentioned the tweets of Jaising said that junior lawyers who dare to make any insinuation against the apex court are punished but senior lawyers go scot free.
A bench of Justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit, who had passed the March 20 verdict said, "Let it be. Please don't read the tweets. We have closed the matter".
Jaising, who appeared for an original complainant B K Gaikwad in the case, said a perjury action shall be initiated against appellant Dr Subhash Kashinath Mahajan for filing truncated FIR before the court.
She said the March 20 verdict shall be recalled by the court, as if the court had perused the full text of FIR, the judgement may not have been passed.
The bench said that matter was brought before us during the hearing and was alive of the fact while passing the verdict.
"We are dismissing the application for perjury action but would treat it as a review petition, which will be heard in chambers," the bench said.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for Mahajan, asked the court not to hear Jaising saying she had made casteist remarks on a public platform against the judges.
He said that last year a junior lawyer had made certain remarks against the apex court registry and his license was suspended for one month by the court.
"She has said that she does not have any faith in the judges. She said that the judges were of upper caste. I can read the tweets," Hansaria said.
The bench said, "Leave it. Please don't read the tweets. We have closed the matter." Hansaria said due to the leniency adopted by the court, these things are happening.
In the main review petition, the apex court refused to stay its verdict on SC/ST Act by which it had put safeguards on immediate arrests of a person and said it was "100 percent" in favour of protecting the rights of these communities and punishing those guilty of atrocities against them.
The Centre told the top court that its March 20, verdict laying certain guidelines countermands the existing law enacted by the legislature and thus it be stayed and the case be referred to a larger bench.
The original complainant, B K Gaikwad, in his petition has sought a recall of its controversial verdict on the SC/ST Act alleging that the judgement was delivered on the basis of a "forged FIR" which was placed on record before it.
In its March 20 verdict, the apex court had allegedly diluted the provisions of the SC/ST Act relating to arrest and certain safeguards were put in place for lodging of FIR under the law.
After the verdict, several states were rocked by violence and clashes on April 2 following a 'Bharat Bandh' call given by several SC/ST organisations protesting the top court's order, which had claimed at least eight lives and injured hundreds.
The Centre and some states have also sought review of the judgement.