<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as "misconceived" a plea against proposed oath taking of Justice D Y Chandrachud as the 50th Chief Justice of India on November 9, 2022.</p>.<p>"We see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is misconceived," a bench of Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said, after hearing a counsel.</p>.<p>During the hearing in the matter, the petitioner’s counsel referred to certain “irregularities, illegal acts” allegedly committed by Justice Chandrachud. The counsel said in a case related to Covid-19 vaccination, Justice Chandrachud allegedly forced people to take the vaccines. </p>.<p>He further contended that Justice Chandrachud's bench heard a special leave petition arising out of an order in the Bombay High Court in which his son had appeared as a counsel. He also claimed when a senior advocate appeared, Justice Chandrachud's bench allowed tagging, but when a junior advocate appeared no tagging was allowed.</p>.<p>The petition was filed on the basis of a representation filed by one Rashid Khan Pathan before the President of India against Justice Chandrachud.</p>.<p>Earlier, the advocates bodies, the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had issued statements condemning the letter circulated against Justice Chandrachud.</p>.<p>The petition was mentioned by a counsel for urgent listing by the petitioner's counsel on Wednesday morning for urgent hearing.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed as "misconceived" a plea against proposed oath taking of Justice D Y Chandrachud as the 50th Chief Justice of India on November 9, 2022.</p>.<p>"We see no reason to entertain the petition. The petition is misconceived," a bench of Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said, after hearing a counsel.</p>.<p>During the hearing in the matter, the petitioner’s counsel referred to certain “irregularities, illegal acts” allegedly committed by Justice Chandrachud. The counsel said in a case related to Covid-19 vaccination, Justice Chandrachud allegedly forced people to take the vaccines. </p>.<p>He further contended that Justice Chandrachud's bench heard a special leave petition arising out of an order in the Bombay High Court in which his son had appeared as a counsel. He also claimed when a senior advocate appeared, Justice Chandrachud's bench allowed tagging, but when a junior advocate appeared no tagging was allowed.</p>.<p>The petition was filed on the basis of a representation filed by one Rashid Khan Pathan before the President of India against Justice Chandrachud.</p>.<p>Earlier, the advocates bodies, the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had issued statements condemning the letter circulated against Justice Chandrachud.</p>.<p>The petition was mentioned by a counsel for urgent listing by the petitioner's counsel on Wednesday morning for urgent hearing.</p>