The KHCAA President said that when Justice Desai was appointed as Chief Justice, the power of "master of roster" had just been clipped by a judicial order.
"You came to this court as Chief Justice when the power of master of roster was clipped by a judicial order which continues to wreak havoc at the Bar even today. This is perhaps the only court where the judges override the directions of a Chief Justice as regard listing and this would have been an obstacle in managing the backlog of cases," he said.
This is not the first time Shenoy has taken issue with the assignment of cases at the Kerala High Court. During the tenure of the previous Chief Justice, Shenoy had filed a petition before the Court alleging that only 20 cases were being listed before now retired Justice Mary Joseph. His petition was dismissed, as was an appeal against the same. Shenoy had also written to the Chief Justice and the Kerala Governor with other allegations against Justice Joseph.
In his speech today, Shenoy drew the Court's attention to the fact that bar associations across the country are becoming more vocal in speaking out against judges whom they find to be lacking.
"The conduct of judges is gaining more attention and the instances of bar associations speaking out loud is increasing. The Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kolkata bar associations are the latest to point it out. The Bar has always stood by the Bench to defend the Collegium system, but the inability to churn out the bad apples is slowly tilting the scale against the Collegium system. It is time for both the Bar and the Bench to introspect and the set the house in order," Shenoy said.
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."
The Bar Association President also alleged that a former judge of the High Court, who is now practicing as a Senior Advocate, "tried fishing in dirty water," and suggested that the customary speech of the KHCAA President be given by the President of the Senior Adovates' Association.
Shenoy contended that encouraging multiple bar associations will cause a divide in the Bar.
"Every High Court and the Supreme Court has only one recognised bar association. Encouraging multiple bar associations will cause a divide in the Bar. Divide and rule was a policy adopted by the British to hold on to power. The unity of the Bar is not essential just to the Bar, but to the very existence of the Bench itself. A divided Bar might give temporary reprieve to a few individuals, but in the long run, it will be suicidal."
Before concluding his address, Shenoy clarified that these "aberrations" are not a reflection of Justice Desai and were mentioned only to ensure that they are not repeated.