The case will be heard by the same Bench, headed by Justice Singh, on March 5. But according to Tiwari, the case was transferred to another court by the Bench. “On February 19, besides dictating the order addressed to the Chief Justice of India to be faxed through the registrar (which was never released thereafter), the case was ordered to be transferred to another Bench, in the presence of all present in the court” reads the fresh representation of Tiwari.

This is the same case, where Tiwari is representing the petitioner, which had originally sparked off a verbal altercation between Justice Singh and the advocate. This argument eventually led to a boycott of the judge’s court.

The order of the Bench states that the case was initially transferred to another court but was later retained on Tiwari’s request. “Taking into consideration the background of the case, we transfer it to some other court after obtaining the orders of the Chief Justice. At this stage, Tiwari makes persistent requests not to transfer his case. After thoughtful reconsideration, we simply adjourn the case to March 5 with a note of advice to Tiwari to desist from such attempts in the future lest it may amount to setting his own house ablaze. List on March 5,” reads the order of the Bench, dated February 19.

Crying foul, Tiwari has stated in his representation: “Now, some other order dated February 19 has been released and I find that the said case has not been transferred but has been retained by the Division Bench, comprising Justice Uma Nath Singh and Justice A N Jindal, on the basis of my request. Nobody argued the case on that day and it was only Justice Uma Nath Singh who went on dictating the orders. But now, this order cites facts and circumstances which were did not exist. I never requested the judges to retain the case, as mentioned in the order”.

Tiwari has also challenged the contents of the order. The order reads: “On January 20, Tiwari was discourteous and made remarks that affronted the judicial authority. This court exercised restrain. On February 19, counsel for the opposite side, R L Gupta, points out certain unwarranted and disparaging remarks made about the institution in the appeal record filed by Tiwari. Gupta has extracted and reproduced this document to highlight the conduct of advocate M K Tiwari and his client. We take a serious note of the same and caution Tiwari about the consequences as these remarks, at the face of it, seem to be contemptuous”.

Reacting to the order, Tiwari stated in his representation: “I have been depicted in a bad light in the order. I was never discourteous, rather I was very respectful throughout. The case was not argued at all. Had the arguments started, the first thing to be discussed would have been my reply to the application.”

Tiwari added that the order has resulted in serious damage to his respect and reputation. “To avert any unfortunate situation in the future before the same Bench, my case may kindly be withdrawn and judge be recused from the proceedings of the case”.