Posted On by &filed under Top Law News.


SYL case:Sacked Delhi govt lawyer criticises his removal in SC

SYL case:Sacked Delhi govt lawyer criticises his removal in SC

A lawyer who was sacked for making the stand of Delhi Government allegedly without instruction on sensitive Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal case today told the Supreme Court that the Aam Aadmi Party government’s ground for his removal was a “blatant lie”.

Delhi Government had replaced advocate Suresh Tripathy as its standing counsel in the apex court for filing the written submission in the SYL matter claiming that the stand of supporting Haryana in the dispute was taken by him without any instruction.

“It is not fair to say that the counsel filed the written submission without instruction. It is a blatant lie,” Tripathy’s counsel and senior advocate R Basant told a five-jugde Constitution Bench headed by Justice A R Dave, which is hearing the Presidential Reference on SYL dispute.

At the outset, the senior advocate said, “why to say he has made the submission without the instruction of the Delhi Government. It is wrong. It affects the career of an advocate,” he said before the bench, also comprising Justices P C Ghose, Shiva Kirti Singh, A K Goel and Amitava Roy.

However, the bench said nothing sort of that should be spoken before it and the issue should be sorted outside the courtroom.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who informed the bench that she was appearing for the Delhi Government in the matter, said, “we will see how it will be sorted out. I will put best effort to sort it out.”

“The decision is not intended towards any individual but it is on the issue. We had filed affidavit. On seeing his (Tripathy’s) objection we will see how it can be sorted out,” she said.

The bench asked both the parties to sit together and settle the issue.

Jaising said the stand of Delhi Government was clear that its right of its share of water be protected under the law.

“All existing rights be protected. We insist that the allocation to us should come. For us the matter of concern is that the allocation of water should be protected. We are not going into the controversy whether Haryana is right or Punjab is right.

“Our earlier affidavit was projecting that we were taking sides,” she said.

Tripthy’s counsel said he will file an application or an affidavit that the submission was made on instructions.

Delhi Government on April 18 had told the apex court that it did not subscribe to the views presented by him in the SYL canal case and later filed a fresh submission by withdrawing an earlier one.

The apex court then had asked the Delhi government to file an affidavit stating the reasons for filing fresh submissions.

“You must file an affidavit. We will consider the written submission and pass appropriate directions,” the bench had said.

In his submission before the apex court, Tripathy had said that Delhi government is in favour of Haryana in the SYL canal case, even as Delhi Jal Board (DJB) said he did not have any permission from the concerned authority.

On April 8, DJB had removed him from its panel for presenting “wrong” submission in SYL canal case in the Supreme Court.

( Source – PTI )


Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of
avatar
wpDiscuz