Gopal Sankaranarayanan Withdraws Delhi Protest Cases

• Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan withdrew from seven Delhi protest cases before the Supreme Court.
• His withdrawal followed repeated interruptions and an alleged microphone snatching during a hearing on Thursday.
• Sankaranarayanan cited the bench's failure to control the court and the importance of judicial dignity as reasons for his decision.
• The hearing involved approximately 46 petitions concerning police brutality, unlawful detentions, and protest site issues.
• The bench presiding over these matters included Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

His withdrawal underscores a rare public expression of dissatisfaction with the conduct of court proceedings by a senior member of the bar.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan has formally withdrawn his representation from seven specific matters before the Supreme Court of India, all related to the Delhi protests. This significant decision by the senior advocate follows a tumultuous hearing on Thursday, during which he experienced repeated interruptions and, notably, the alleged snatching of his microphone while attempting to address the bench.

Sankaranarayanan confirmed his decision to cease his involvement in these cases, citing a profound concern for the integrity of the judicial process. He communicated to his clients, for whom he had been briefed in these seven matters, that he would no longer be appearing in the proceedings. His withdrawal underscores a rare public expression of dissatisfaction with the conduct of court proceedings by a senior member of the bar.

The senior advocate articulated his reasons for the Delhi protest petitions withdrawal, stating that the presiding bench "failed to control the court." He emphasized that he could not continue under such conditions, prioritizing the "dignity of the court" above his continued appearance. This sentiment was echoed in his further remarks, where he stressed that preserving the decorum and dignity of the Supreme Court was of paramount importance.

Sankaranarayanan specifically highlighted a lack of order during the hearing, pointing out that matters were taken up without adherence to their designated serial numbers. Despite arriving fully prepared with his notes and briefs for the proceedings, he was consistently interrupted by other counsel as he attempted to present his arguments to the bench, contributing to the chaotic environment that ultimately led to his decision to withdraw.

The hearing in question, which precipitated Gopal Sankaranarayanan's withdrawal, involved a substantial docket of approximately 46 petitions. These cases collectively addressed a range of critical issues stemming from the Delhi protests, including allegations of police brutality, instances of unlawful detentions, restrictions imposed on public movement, concerns regarding journalists' rights, and the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated site for public demonstrations.

These numerous and sensitive petitions were being heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The breadth of issues covered by these petitions underscores the high-stakes nature of the proceedings and the public interest involved, making the disruption and subsequent withdrawal of a senior advocate particularly noteworthy.

The incident involving Gopal Sankaranarayanan and his subsequent withdrawal from the Delhi protest cases before the Supreme Court raises significant questions about courtroom decorum in the Supreme Court of India, particularly in high-profile public interest litigation. His assertion that the bench did not adequately manage the proceedings, coupled with the reported microphone snatching, points to a breakdown in the expected order and respect within the judicial setting.

This event serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by legal practitioners when procedural integrity is compromised. The senior advocate's decision, driven by a commitment to the court's dignity, highlights the critical role of judicial control in ensuring fair and effective hearings, especially when dealing with a large volume of emotionally charged cases and multiple counsel.

Lawyers should note the potential for procedural disruptions and challenges to courtroom decorum in high-profile public interest litigation before the Supreme Court, which may impact effective representation and necessitate strategic adjustments for clients involved in sensitive matters.

Source: Original reporting via Bar & Bench