Sanjay Raut: Attending a recent media interaction in Delhi, Chairman of the Bar Council of India and BJP Rajya Sabha MP Manan Kumar Mishra spoke about the row between Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s visit to Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s residence during Ganesh Puja. The visit, which entailed a joint prayer session, has created considerable debate; Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut has raised apprehensions of conflict of interest.
Mishra Defends PM Modi’s Visit as Routine Social Event
Manan Kumar Mishra, a senior advocate, attempted to downplay the import of the visit, describing the visit as a “routine social-religious meeting” and not a judicial concern. “Sanjay Raut is a seasoned leader. I would not like to say much but those who are involved in cases will object a little…They know that this will not affect any Supreme Court judgement, this was a social-religious function,” said Mishra. He said, “PM went there and offered prayers and then he returned. If there had to be some different kind of meeting, it would have been done confidentially. They would have talked on FaceTime or WhatsApp. But mocking these meetings…Yesterday, a politician visited abroad and met anti-India elements but neither Sanjay Raut nor any Congress leader speaks on it.” Mishra responded and asked why so much hype was being created over the visit by Raut and the Congress party, stating that it reeks of an attempt to divert attention from other controversies- including a recent meeting between a political leader and anti-India elements abroad.
Sanjay Raut Questions Fairness of Judicial Proceedings
The propriety of the Prime Minister’s visit in such circumstances had been questioned by Sanjay Raut, citing apprehensions of fairness about ongoing judicial proceedings involving the Maharashtra case, in which Raut’s party is involved. “Such close interaction between the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India will only doubt the impartiality of the judiciary and, more particularly, when the Prime Minister is a party to the said case in its wider ramifications,” he had said.
However, Mishra justified the visit as a ‘cultural’ gesture of goodwill and not in an attempt to influence the courts. He added, “Instead of examining the judiciary and the executive for minor interactions, credit should be given for their good coordination.” The row once again shows the growing tensions between political functionaries and the judiciary, underlining how fragile this balance is if the public has to believe in the processes of justice.
