He also took issue with being excluded from the reference function organised when Justice Joseph retired early last month.
“If there was one aberration that caught the attention of the Bar during your career, it was the deviation from the traditional and customary full court reference given to retiring judges. On the basis of a letter from a retiring judge, you decided to deviate from a long-standing tradition of this honourable Court.”
He, however, said that the fault lay not with the Chief Justice, but with the other senior judges of the Court who failed to inform him of the tradition of the KHCAA President speaking at the references organised for retiring judges.
“The senior judges are not just senior judges of this cour,t but they were advocates who practiced here for decades before being elevated as judges and were well aware of the longstanding traditions and customs of the Bar.“
Shenoy claimed that the deviation from standard practice was done on the basis of an assumption that he would speak negatively about the retiring judge. He took issue with the same, arguing that no President of the Association would ever air their personal grievances at an event of that nature.
“No President has in the past and no President in the future will ever bring in their personal issues, because every President standing here is well aware that he or she is speaking not for himself, but that they are representing each and every member of the Bar and the dignity of the judicial institution itself. We have reason to believe that the full court would not have been party to the decision to deviate from the long standing traditions of the Bar, but the fact that it was done painted the entire court with the same brush. In trying to shield a judge, the Court exposed itself to the people.“
Source: Barandbench
