Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, expressed his displeasure on Friday towards Advocate Mathew J Nedumpara for sending an email and lodging a complaint with the Supreme Court Secretary General. In his communication, Nedumpara asserted that the top court was currently dedicating an excessive amount of time to hearing matters pertaining to Constitution benches, seemingly at the expense of addressing issues that directly impact the common citizens.
Visibly agitated, the Chief Justice admonished Advocate Nedumpara, stating, "It appears that you lack a fundamental understanding of the nature of Constitution bench matters. These cases primarily involve the interpretation of the Constitution itself. Take, for instance, the case we deliberated upon just two days ago, which revolved around the question of whether an individual holding a Light Motor Vehicle license should be entitled to operate a transport vehicle."
The Chief Justice emphasized the profound implications such cases hold for hundreds of thousands of drivers, underlining that the Court does not arbitrarily select Constitution bench cases devoid of real-life consequences. He cited the Article 370 case as an illustrative example, noting that it provided a platform for the voices of the nation to be heard, including perspectives from the Valley. The Court actively engaged with both proponents and dissenting voices, thereby dispelling the notion that the Article 370 petition lacked relevance.
Addressing Advocate Nedumpara, the Chief Justice encouraged him to dispel the misconception that the Supreme Court primarily handles esoteric Constitution bench matters unrelated to the daily lives of ordinary citizens.
In response, Nedumpara conveyed to the bench, "My objection is not to the Court adjudicating matters that concern the fundamental rights of individuals. Rather, I am concerned about the Court deliberating on matters of public interest without adequate transparency."
In a counterpoint, the CJI asserted, "Even on this aspect, your perception is inaccurate. In the Article 370 case, we actively engaged with the sentiments of the nation."
