The Supreme Court adjourned the matter to April 27.
The Supreme Court today reacted sharply to criticism that it wanted to take over Covid-related cases being heard by various High Courts and said senior lawyers were ascribing motives when there were none.
Justice LN Rao today said that even without reading the order or it being released, "non-existent" intentions were being imputed.
"Is this the way orders are spoken of outside even when no orders passed?" he asked.
A bench which included outgoing Chief Justice SA Bobde had yesterday taken suo motu cognisance of the "confusion and diversion of resources" caused when six High Courts simultaneously hear cases related to the pandemic.
The matters related to the pandemic largely concern the availability of oxygen, essential drugs, the vaccination process, restrictions imposed in the wake of the spread of infection.
The six High Courts where similar matters are being heard are those of Delhi, Bombay, Sikkim, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, and Allahabad.
"They are exercising jurisdiction in best interest. But it is creating confusion and diversion of resources," the Chief Justice noted yesterday adding that these cases may be withdrawn to the Supreme Court.
This move evoked sharp criticism from various quarters, of which Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave made a mention in the Supreme Court today.
"You are imputing motives without seeing the order," Justice Rao said in response, to which Mr Dave replied saying, "It was a matter of perception. Our (concern) was genuine as the Supreme Court had done it in the past."
The bench then said it had "never stalled the High Courts". "They went ahead and passed orders," Justice S Ravindra Bhat, part of the bench said, adding that Mr Dave must protect the institution.
The bench said its intention was only to look into the interstate movement of oxygen, which had been a key point of contention between many states, including Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana.
The bench then adjourned the Covid oxygen case to April 27 after the Centre sought time to file a response.
The matter of interpreting -- or misinterpreting -- judges by lawyers, media, and sections of the general public came up again later in the day during the farewell function for Chief Justice Bobde. Referring to the relationship between the bar and the bench, he indirectly referred to the criticism by advocates in the oxygen case.
"There is one area we have to pay lot of attention communication and relationship of bar and bench...I do not wish to criticise anybody. The attitude and mutual respect...is necessary for an excellent functioning of judicial system," Chief Justice Bobde said during his farewell address.