NEW DELHI: Renowned for his deep analytical knowledge of constitutional law, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan decided to hang his robes on Monday citing “humiliation” during the hearing of Delhi government‘s case against the Centre in the Supreme Court last week.
In a two-paragraph letter to CJI Dipak Misra, Dhavan said, “After the humiliating end to the Delhi case, I have decided to give up court practice. You (the CJI) are entitled to take back the senior gown conferred on me, though I would like to keep it for memory and services rendered.”
Despite his penchant for sarcasm and causticity towards both lawyers and judges during hearings, Dhavan’s contribution in important matters involving complex constitutional questions is undeniable. An author of numerous books on constitutional law, he wrote regular columns in newspapers debating current issues from a constitutional perspective.
Judges and senior advocates recognised and respected his knowledge. But Dhavan’s mercurial temperament made him blow hot at the smallest provocation. The client’s interest took a back seat when a provoked Dhavan perceived a comment to be an insinuation.
NEW DELHI: Renowned for his deep analytical knowledge of constitutional law, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan decided to hang his robes on Monday citing “humiliation” during the hearing of Delhi government‘s case against the Centre in the Supreme Court last week.
In a two-paragraph letter to CJI Dipak Misra, Dhavan said, “After the humiliating end to the Delhi case, I have decided to give up court practice. You (the CJI) are entitled to take back the senior gown conferred on me, though I would like to keep it for memory and services rendered.”
Despite his penchant for sarcasm and causticity towards both lawyers and judges during hearings, Dhavan’s contribution in important matters involving complex constitutional questions is undeniable. An author of numerous books on constitutional law, he wrote regular columns in newspapers debating current issues from a constitutional perspective.
Judges and senior advocates recognised and respected his knowledge. But Dhavan’s mercurial temperament made him blow hot at the smallest provocation. The client’s interest took a back seat when a provoked Dhavan perceived a comment to be an insinuation.
While arguing for the Arvind Kejriwal government, he virtually contradicted another counsel Indira Jaising‘s arguments for the same client and made a wrong summation of the court’s approach. When the constitution bench headed by Justice Misra reprimanded him, he flew into a rage and said he didn’t care which way the court decided and that he had lost many cases gracefully. Jaising protested against Dhavan’s prediction and said she felt the Kejriwal government had a great chance of winning the case against the Centre. Two days later, Dhavan in Ayodhya case sought adjournment of hearing before a bench headed by the CJI. When the CJI reminded that all counsel had agreed on August 11 for commencement of hearing on December 5, Dhavan continued to whine against the bench’s decision to go ahead with the hearing. Appearing for two members from the minority community, he threatened to recuse from the hearing if adjournment was not granted.
On Friday, the Chief Justice of India poured out his anguish in open court about “atrocious” arguments being made in the court during hearing of the Delhi government case as well as the Ayodhya matter. That comment appeared to have sealed it for Dhavan.