NEW DELHI: The All India Bar Association (AIBA) Monday termed as "contemptuous" the recent statement of Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal who said that he has lost hope in the Supreme Court.
While speaking at an event here on August 6, Sibal, a former Law Minister was critical of the apex court's recent judgements in the Zakia Jafri case as well as on the pleas pertaining to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
In his opening statement in the session titled, 'Judicial assault on civil liberties', Sibal said "If you think the Supreme Court will give you relief, you are under a grave misconception. This I am saying after 50 years of experience."
He said this year, he would complete 50 years as an advocate in the Supreme Court and after five decades, he had no hope left in the institution.
The senior advocate said it was a big misunderstanding if people thought that they would get relief from the Supreme Court.
"After 50 years in the Supreme Court, I find that I have no hope from this institution," he said.
Reacting to Sibal's August 6 statement, Senior advocate Adish C Aggarwala, the Chairman of AIBA, said "This is wholly contemptuous and coming from someone of the standing of Kapil Sibal who was also President of Supreme Court Bar Association, it is unfortunate too," He said Sibal is an integral part of the justice dispensation system.
"However, if he actually feels a loss of hope in the institution, then he is free not to appear before the courts," Aggarwala said.
He said it has become a trend that when a case is decided against someone, that person starts denouncing judges on social media alleging that the judge is biased or the judicial system has failed.
He said the courts decide cases by applying the law to the facts presented by cases before them and they owe allegiance to the Constitution.
"Criminal cases which were instituted by the then governments as a political witch-hunt, where detailed investigations have been carried out but failed to disclose any evidence, had to be given a burial and if that has happened, no fault can be found with the judicial system. Courts are not to deliver judgements hanging people just to assuage the feelings of a certain community," he said.
A robust system is insulated from sentiments and is influenced only by the law, Aggarwala said.
On Saturday, Sibal had stated there was a wide gap between what the apex court said and what was being actually done in reality.
"Often we see that the court says something and something else happens on the ground. You have said that the Supreme Court passed a good. Progressive judgement. But you tell me that what has happened on the ground after the judgement?" Sibal had said.
He had also said that he had reached a conclusion that unless there was a change in the society's mental perspective, there would be no change in the society or law.
Saying that the special investigation team (SIT) in the 2002 Gujarat riots case had accepted the version of the accused and that it did not consider the correspondence between the intelligence agency and the fire brigade, which clearly showed that during riots the fire brigade did not pick up phone calls, Sibal criticised the top court's judgement where it rejected the petition of Zakia Jafri.
Questioning the top court's approach in passing the recent PMLA judgement, Sibal said the ED has become dangerous and it had "breached the lines of individual liberty".