Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. (PTI File Photo)
The comments came in as advocate Mathews Nedumpara continued to interject senior advocate Narendra Hooda while he was putting forth a rejoinder to the submissions of the Centre and the National Testing Agency (NTA)
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was on Tuesday compelled to ask security to get a lawyer removed from the Supreme Court while hearing a batch of petitions against the irregularities in NEET.
“I have seen judiciary for the last 24 years. I can’t let lawyers dictate procedure in this court,” the CJI said to advocate Mathews Nedumpara.
The comments came in as Nedumpara continued to interject senior advocate Narendra Hooda while he was putting forth a rejoinder to the submissions of the Centre and the National Testing Agency (NTA).
Nedumpara refused the request of CJI Chandrachud to speak after Hooda and said: “I am the senior-most here.”
Responding to his statement, the CJI said: “Mr Nedumpara, I am warning you. You will not speak to the gallery. I am in charge of the court.”
However, as Nedumpara continued his tirade, the CJI told his staff: “Security ko bulao… Have him removed.”
“I have seen it since 1979,” said Nedumpara, responding to which the CJI said: “I may have to issue something which is not fair.”
After the exchange, Nedumpara left the court and Hooda continued his rejoinder wherein he argued that the sanctity of the exam is finished and mere figures are being thrown at the court.
“The whole world is watching, paper has been leaked, mobiles not found…even if 1,000 are beneficiaries in this then re-test has to happen,” he argued.
The top court is hearing a clutch of pleas, including those that are seeking a re-test of the controversy-ridden NEET-UG, on grounds of question paper leak and other malpractices.
On Monday, the bench faced a piquant situation over a physics question during the day-long arguments. It was argued that the question had two correct answers and a set of examinees, who gave one particular answer out of the two correct ones, were awarded four marks.
Some lawyers also said there were three sets of aspirants, and one set got minus five for the correct answer, the second secured four marks for another correct answer, and the third group comprised those who skipped it for either want of knowledge or due to the fear of getting negative marks.
This would have a significant impact on the merit list of successful candidates, a bench was was told.
