Taking note of the developments in Supreme Court, Ashok Gehlot Government in Rajasthan has removed the state’s standing counsel in the Supreme Court.
Ruchi Kohli, the state’s standing counsel in the Supreme Court had appeared as Advocate-on-Record for BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi in a criminal contempt case filed against Congress chief Rahul Gandhi. Rattled by the state counsel for being the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) against the chief of the ruling party of Rajasthan, the decision to relieve Ruchi Kohli of her duties was taken. According to sources, the decision to remove Ruchi, from the post was taken by state’s law secretary on Saturday, Kohli was subsequently informed about the decision.
According to sources, Rajasthan government was embarrassed when the developments surfaced, and swung into action on Friday itself when the petition was filed. Ruchi Kohli was appointed as the state’s counsel in the Supreme Court by the previous Vasundhara Raje led BJP Government. Kohli had been the state’s counsel for over five years.
Ruchi appeared on behalf of BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi, who has filed a criminal contempt petition against Rahul Gandhi over his comments on the Prime Minister and Rafale deal.
The Supreme Court, going ahead with the petition filed by Meenakshi Lekhi, has sought explanations from Congress Chief Rahul Gandhi for the statements which he made against the Prime Minister and had attributed to the Apex Court. The CJI bench made it clear that they have not made any such comments against the Prime Minister.
The court demanded explanations from Rahul Gandhi after noting, “views, observations attributed to this court in alleged address made by him to the media has been incorrectly attributed to this court.”
In the Supreme Court, only a select group of lawyers are eligible to be Advocate-on-Record, after he/she qualifies the requirements as laid down in the Supreme Court of India Rules, 1966. The Advocate-on-Record is required to be present along with the arguing counsel when the court takes up the case.
This series of events again points towards rampant culture of vendetta politics that runs in Congress circles. An advocate, whose only duty is to assist the court to reach to a conclusion based on facts and evidence, is again made a victim of skewed and narrow political thinking. Congress has been a serial offender in this respect when political vendetta and favoritism has trumped over skills and legitimacy.