Journalist J Gopikrishnan had in January, sent a written complaint to the Chief Justice of India about the scam accused Chidambaram couple using the Sr Advocate title.
J Gopikrishnan, in his two-page letter to the Chief Justice, had accused P Chidambaram of ‘clearly misusing the position’ despite being an accused of corruption and money laundering cases. In his letter, he says, Congress leader P Chidambaram appeared in cases before trial courts in his Senior Advocate attire while his lawyers, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for his bail, which is a “clear misuse of holding Senior Advocate Designation” by an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Gopikrishnan today took to Twitter to inform that he has got a message from the Supreme Court stating that his written complaint has been transferred to the concerned Bar Council for ‘action deemed fit’.
https://twitter.com/jgopikrishnan70/status/1141749144211644416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Gopikrishnan has requested CJI Gogoi to suspend the Senior Advocate designation to both P Chidambaram and Nalini Chidambaram until the trials against them have concluded. He has also requested the CJI to consider the implementation of an annual affidavit to be filed by all Senior Advocates disclosing cases against them.
In his letter, he had mentioned that P Chidambaram had managed to secure interim protection from arrest several times from Judge OP Saini. He had alleged that Chidambaram has been getting an undue advantage due to his ‘senior advocate’ title.
The letter also cited the instance of Chidambaram’s wife, Nalini Chidambaram, managing to obtain interim protection from arrest from the Madras High Court on a second Saturday, while she was charge-sheeted by a trial court in Kolkata for her connections to Saradha chit fund scam.
The HC bench headed by Justice Ilanthirayan had even allowed her to appear before a Chennai court to seek bail. Nalini Chidambaram was allowed bail and interim protection from arrest for 15 days by the evening. Gopikrishnan questions the CJI whether such benevolence from the courts can be expected for common citizens.