<p> The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to the tendency among litigants to attach opinions by former apex court judges to their PILs in a bid to bolster their claim.<br /><br />The bench voiced its disapproval with: "If we can't honour this court, who will do it?" <br />The court had taken objection to former judges rendering their opinion on the subject during the hearing of a PIL by Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter) on the date of birth controversy of Army Chief General V.K.Singh. <br /><br />Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia did not take kindly to the petitioner, Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter) annexing the opinion of four former CJIs - Justice J.S. Verma, Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice V.N. Khare and Justice R.C. Lahoti - to its petition to back its cause. <br />Chief Justice Kapadia was so peeved at the opinions being annexed - despite a disclaimer from the former CJIs that they were not to be used in any court proceedings - that he directed the apex court registry not to accept any writ petitions in future if they had such documents annexed. <br /><br />The registry, the court's executive wing, was asked to raise objections and not accept a writ petition till such documents were withdrawn. Chief Justice Kapadia said the apex court "registry will carry out this direction in all the matters". <br /><br />In another case, the court aired its "despair and anguish" in the course of the hearing of a contempt petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) against a manufacturer of pan masala and chewing tobacco for using plastic sachets despite a ban by the apex court. <br /><br />Justice Ganguly expressed his disgust when he found that the opinion of a former CJI, on what constitutes a sachet, was attached in a pending matter in the case.<br /><br />The opinion, given on the letter head of a former CJI, said that any packet which had less than half a gram tobacco or four grams of pan masala and was meant for one time use was a sachet. <br /><br />However, a bigger packet, meant for multiple use, would not technically be a sachet but a pouch. <br /><br />This enabled the litigant to circumvent the court ban against use of plastic in packaging. <br />The opinion was procured by the Dharam Pal Satya Pal Group manufacturing Rajnigandha pan masala and Tulsi chewing tobacco and was annexed with their affidavit in response to a contempt notice by the apex court.<br /><br />Justice T.S. Thakur observed that the "opinion should have said that it could not be used in any court", which was not done in this case.<br /><br />He said this when the chewing tobacco manufacturer told the court that the use of plastic in pouches was not wilful and tendered an apology. <br /><br />Expressing their displeasure, Justice Ganguly observed: "In this country no value is attached to the question of the honour of this court." <br /><br />"Every thing melts before money," Justice Ganguly observed. "If we can't honour this court, who will?"</p>
<p> The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to the tendency among litigants to attach opinions by former apex court judges to their PILs in a bid to bolster their claim.<br /><br />The bench voiced its disapproval with: "If we can't honour this court, who will do it?" <br />The court had taken objection to former judges rendering their opinion on the subject during the hearing of a PIL by Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter) on the date of birth controversy of Army Chief General V.K.Singh. <br /><br />Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia did not take kindly to the petitioner, Grenadiers Association (Rohtak Chapter) annexing the opinion of four former CJIs - Justice J.S. Verma, Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice V.N. Khare and Justice R.C. Lahoti - to its petition to back its cause. <br />Chief Justice Kapadia was so peeved at the opinions being annexed - despite a disclaimer from the former CJIs that they were not to be used in any court proceedings - that he directed the apex court registry not to accept any writ petitions in future if they had such documents annexed. <br /><br />The registry, the court's executive wing, was asked to raise objections and not accept a writ petition till such documents were withdrawn. Chief Justice Kapadia said the apex court "registry will carry out this direction in all the matters". <br /><br />In another case, the court aired its "despair and anguish" in the course of the hearing of a contempt petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) against a manufacturer of pan masala and chewing tobacco for using plastic sachets despite a ban by the apex court. <br /><br />Justice Ganguly expressed his disgust when he found that the opinion of a former CJI, on what constitutes a sachet, was attached in a pending matter in the case.<br /><br />The opinion, given on the letter head of a former CJI, said that any packet which had less than half a gram tobacco or four grams of pan masala and was meant for one time use was a sachet. <br /><br />However, a bigger packet, meant for multiple use, would not technically be a sachet but a pouch. <br /><br />This enabled the litigant to circumvent the court ban against use of plastic in packaging. <br />The opinion was procured by the Dharam Pal Satya Pal Group manufacturing Rajnigandha pan masala and Tulsi chewing tobacco and was annexed with their affidavit in response to a contempt notice by the apex court.<br /><br />Justice T.S. Thakur observed that the "opinion should have said that it could not be used in any court", which was not done in this case.<br /><br />He said this when the chewing tobacco manufacturer told the court that the use of plastic in pouches was not wilful and tendered an apology. <br /><br />Expressing their displeasure, Justice Ganguly observed: "In this country no value is attached to the question of the honour of this court." <br /><br />"Every thing melts before money," Justice Ganguly observed. "If we can't honour this court, who will?"</p>