NEW DELHI: In Mahabharat, 'Bheeshma' as 'Pitamah' was an unparalleled warrior while Pandava clan's 'Abhimanyu', son of Arjuna, was a bright archer who sparkled brilliantly in the war field but for a while before being overwhelmed by a dozen seasoned archers from Kaurava army.

The Supreme Court on Thursday saw glimpses of both 'Pitamah' and 'Abhimanyu'. 'Pitamah' walked effortlessly with reliefs he sought for, while 'Abhimanyu' struggled valiantly only to fail.

The SC had steadfastly followed the norm that no mentioning of a case would be made before a constitution bench. This rule had its exceptions in the past, when seasoned senior advocates in exceptional cases had mentioned and got relief.

Advocate Sanjay Hegde, designated senior advocate not so long ago, tried his luck before a constitution bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu only to be told "not to create a new precedent". Pleadings that he had no alternative but to mention before the CJI did not cut any ice.

As this conversation was going on, the CJI found 92-year-old Ram Jethmalani standing and asked "you want to be excused for your absence Mr Jethmalani?" The nonagenarian advocate put up his typical disarming smile and made two requests – adjournment of the black money case hearing and accommodation on July 30 when he was scheduled to argue the Rajiv assassination case.

Having refused to accede to Hegde's request a minute back, the CJI stepped around the situation by saying "we will accommodate the Pitamah". Not to be outdone, Hegde quickly requested the bench to treat him as "Abhimanyu' and entertain the mentioning of his matter.

Like in Mahabharat, on Thursday too 'Abhimanyu was out of luck.