G E Vahanvati, the Attorney-General of India, :Who Is This Man Firing The Gun For?

UTTAM SENGUPTA : Outlook :Nov 18,2013

Goolam Essaji Vahanvati, the Attorney-General of India, 
courts more controversies than he helps dispel

Things have come to such a pass that every move Goolam Essaji Vahanvati, the Attorney-General of India, makes ends up fuelling further speculation about his future. Three weeks ago, the close-knit community in Delhi’s Supreme Court was all aflutter when the normally reserved Vahanvati greeted lawyers and court reporters with big smiles, handshakes, and even a bit of chit-chat. Only the previous month, he had uncharacteristically lost his cool in the apex court, complaining “I cannot carry everything in my head” and saying that he was being asked too many questions, and too fast.

Vahanvati quickly tendered an apology at the next hearing. But clearly, something is getting to the 64-year-old attorney-general—a much-observed and talked-about man, unlike most law officers of the government, past or present. That’s because questions are being openly asked whether the country is getting adequate and sound legal advice; as the country’s top legal officer, providing that is Vahanvati’s job. As an embattled UPA struggles with many demons of its own making—from 2G and Coalgate to the validity of opinion polls and the question of the functional ambit and autonomy of the CBI—Vahanvati has a stake in each and every one of them.

The past few years have been a public relations disaster for a man who had in a recent magazine profile reportedly confided that he had in his childhood dreamt of being driven around in an official car with a red beacon (and so he does, with a ‘fancy’ number—777—to boot). Partial to Vahanvati, former A-G Soli Sorabjee told Outlook, “I know Goolam. He has gone through hell.” Sorabjee should know how tough it is to be the A-G. He occupied the office in 2000, and fought a bruising battle with the then law minister Ram Jethmalani. Sorabjee won that round, as Jethmalani was made to resign.

Four law ministers have changed since 2009; two solicitors-general and an additional S-G have quit. Vahanvati has been the one constant.

The most frequently asked question today is what Vahanvati will do in 2014 when his term draws to an end, especially if the UPA does not return to power. There’s a growing buzz that he is seeking a suitable diplomatic assignment abroad or a Rajya Sabha berth in good time. In any case, after serving the government for a decade and a half, as the first Muslim advocate-general of Maharashtra since 1999 and then as solicitor-general of India from 2004 and the attorney-general from 2009, can he ever go back to private practice? Vahanvati did not respond to an interview request fromOutlook.

The A-G is not just a lawyer and the first law officer of the government, he is appointed by the President under Article 76 of the Constitution, remains in office till the pleasure of the President and draws a remuneration decided by the President. While he is expected to give legal opinion to the government as and when it seeks any, he is also expected to advise the government in upholding the rule of law. He is a leader of the Bar and must necessarily be eligible to become a judge of the SC. He is expected to assist the court in delivering justice.

It is in this capacity that the A-G is seen as a “friend of the court”, the government’s “conscience-keeper” and the legal custodian of the interests of 1.2 billion Indians. Legal eagles Outlook spoke to recalled the deposition of the first A-G of India, M.C. Setalvad, before the M.C. Chagla Commission of Inquiry against the then finance minister T.T. Krishnamachari. Setalvad’s scathing indictment of the minister led to his resignation in 1958. And though Congress MPs then raised questions about how the A-G actually turned out to be the prosecutor, Setalvad stayed on in his post till 1963.

But times have clearly changed. Vahanvati, the 13th A-G, is seen more as a facilitator for the government, tailoring his legal opinion and advice to suit the political establishment, crony capitalists and politicians. He has been described as the government’s ‘hit man’ (by top SC lawyer Rajeev Dhavan in Mail Today), provoking a veteran SC observer to quip that all A-Gs are “by definition hit men while some turned out to be even the henchmen of the government”.

A section of Delhi’s political grapevine attributes Vahanvati’s survival to the patronage he enjoys from 10, Janpath, and more specifically from everyone’s Ahmedbhai, Sonia Gandhi’s political secretary Ahmed Patel. Others speak of his proximity to Maharashtra politicians Sharad Pawar and Sushilkumar Shinde while everyone agrees that he has the backing of the who’s who of the industrial lobby in Mumbai, like the Ambanis, Ruias, Tata and Vedanta. His alleged friendship with Anil Ambani has often cast a cloud over his professional conduct.

A section of Delhi’s political grapevine attributes Vahanvati’s survival to 10, Janpath’s patronage, and Sonia’s political secretary Ahmed Patel.

As solicitor-general, he was accused of bypassing the law ministry and giving an opinion directly to the then telecom minister, A. Raja, which benefited Reliance Communications. In fact, Vahanvati became the first attorney-general earlier this year to depose as a witness in a criminal case related to the 2G scam. Again, his opinion allowed Reliance Power to divert surplus coal from Sasan coalmines in Madhya Pradesh, a decision that was frowned upon by the CAG, and one which would result in windfall gains for the company. Vahanvati and the next telecom minister Kapil Sibal were also accused of reducing the penalty of Rs 650 crore imposed on Reliance Communication to just Rs 5 crore for alleged violations of the Unified Access Service Licence Agreement.

Unlike his predecessors, he is also not seen keeping the political establishment at arm’s length. Consider his complaint about receiving a phone call in September from a woman who allegedly pretended to be UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. Media reports suggested that Vahanvati checked with UPA leaders and when informed that Sonia had not called him, lodged a complaint with Delhi Police. Curiously, the police initially claimed to have tracked down the caller and identified the lady as an officer working for a public sector undertaking. But thereafter not a whisper has been heard about the case.

“I do not know what wrong I committed in my last life that the media is after me,” Vahanvati said in court in 2011. But it is a tribute to his quiet networking skills and his friendship with media barons that the media has by and large left him alone. Indeed, Vahanvati has survived one controversy after another. To put this in perspective, there have been four Union law ministers since 2009, the term of each one shorter than his predecessor. M. Veerappa Moily lasted a little more than two years. Salman Khurshid a little more than one, Ashwani Kumar less than one while the present incumbent Kapil Sibal took over in May 2013 and, if not replaced, will also have a tenure of less than a year.

During this same period, two eminent lawyers—Gopal Subramaniam and Rohinton Nariman—also put in their papers as solicitors-general of India, apparently because they did not see eye to eye with Vahanvati. One of the additional solicitors- general, Harin Raval, resigned after accusing the A-G of compromising his position in court; another additional solicitor-general, Bishwajit Bhattacharya, released a book the day after demitting office on November 9, 2012, to give vent to his frustration. During his three-year tenure beginning 2009, wrote Bhattacharya, the A-G did not call a single meeting of all law officers together. Bhattacharya often received briefs late at night for cases to be argued the next morning in the SC.

What say? Vahanvati with Salman Khurshid, R. Chandrasekhar. (Photograph by Jitender Gupta)

Amidst such bloodletting, the one constant has been the A-G himself. Curiously, the apex court has been rather lenient to him. Consider Coalgate. Since the CBI has been investigating the role of government officials and politicians and possible criminality, the A-G—as the lawyer of the government—had no business interacting with the investigating and the prosecuting agency. But that’s exactly what he did. Even when an affidavit by the CBI director revealed that Vahanvati had misled the court, he was let off with the mildest of rebukes by the court as well as the government whereas Raval and law minister Kumar were forced to quit. Could it be because he has been defending the prime minister, who was directly in charge of the coal ministry? Is it because he knows too much?

He is said to be close to Sharad Pawar and Sushilkumar Shinde. He also has the backing of the who’s who of the Mumbai industrial lobby.

Yet another high-profile case where Vahanvati’s role app­ea­red suspect is the Vodafone case where the income-tax dep­artment demanded a whopping Rs 11,000 crore by way of taxes when Vodafone bought the Indian operations of Hutch. A day after the deal, $11 billion travelled from Cayman Island to the Hong Kong office of Hutch as payment. The money should have come to India and tax deducted at source but Vodafone took advantage of a Reserve Bank of India rule that allowed such transactions following a “general permission”.

After the Supreme Court cleared the deal and then FM Pranab Mukherjee brought in a retrospective amendment in the rules to address cases like this, Vodafone approached the government for conciliation and an out-of-court settlement. At this time, Vahanvati advised then law minister Kumar to deny conciliation. But soon after, Sibal took over as the law minister and sought fresh opinion from the A-G, he took a U-turn and advised him in favour of conciliation.

Vahanvati himself is not unduly perturbed by charges of flip-flop. “On numerous occasions,” he told The Times of India, “after the opinions are rendered, I receive requests to reconsider or review the opinion. This is sometimes based on additional facts or on some provisions of law or the Constitution not previously considered. This could lead to reiteration or reconsideration of the opinion....”

For instance, the Public Accounts Committee summoned Vahanvati to explain his conflicting opinions on the CAG’s contention that the government had withdrawn Rs 37,365 crore from the Consolidated Fund of India without Parliament’s approval in the past five years. Vah­anvati first advised the PAC the CAG’s stand was correct. But when the finance ministry called for a fresh opinion, he concurred and held that Par­l­iament’s approval wasn’t required as interest payment on I-T ref­u­nds was both a statutory and recurrent obligation.

His opinions have been so controversial that a plea was made under the RTI Act to make the A-G’s opinions public. But the A-G pleaded that he was not a public authority. Chief Information Commissioner Satyanand Mishra upheld his plea that the A-G was a “single entity”, did not have a secretariat unlike other constitutional functionaries and that his relationship with the government was that of a lawyer and client and not of servant and master. The cic also accepted the plea that the A-G had no administrative control over other law officers. The undefined role and position of the A-G, whose advice is not binding on the government, was further accentuated when former Union law minister Khurshid was quoted as saying, “The attorney-general is an officer of the court and not an officer of the government.”

There is a growing buzz that Vahanvati is seeking a suitable diplomatic assignment abroad or a berth in the Rajya Sabha in good time.

In a close-knit legal community—where relatives often occupy key positions—it is almost expected that conflict of interest situations arise. A successful corporate lawyer who rose to become the advocate-general of Maharashtra, he is close to business interests. Vahanvati’s son, Essaji, was a junior partner in the prominent corporate law firm azb, founded among others by Soli Sorabjee’s daughter, Zia Modi. His daughter, Sholeen, and son-in-law Tariq Carrimjee, both British citizens, work closely with investors, brokers and the stock exchange (see column by Kian Ganz).

With as much as 80 per cent of the SC’s workload comprising Special Leave Petitions involving civil or commercial disputes, and the bulk of the cases emanating from just four or five high courts (Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Punjab & Haryana and Allahabad), the possibility of conflicts of interest clouding the judgement of a corporate lawyer is clearly high. Vahanvati, like those belonging to similar lawyer families, faces the same allegations.

That said, people who have known Vahanvati are effusive in hailing him as a genius who has a ready solution to every problem. Above all, he is credited with having a sharp legal mind. He was the first Indian lawyer who was allowed to argue a case in London in the early 1980s. “A man of great integrity” is what eminent jurist Fali Nariman had said when Vahanvati was appointed.

By all accounts, Vahanvati is a likeable man with varied interests. He likes rock music and is a gardening enthusiast. Vahanvati is said to know the names and details of every plant brought in from all over the world in his four-acre farmhouse in Pune. He bred horses but following the death of his favourite horse, he reportedly gifted all the 17 horses he had to his friends “free of cost”. He lectured at St Xavier’s College and Sophia College, Mumbai, and wrote on history of food in the inhouse magazine of Taj. He also wrote a weekly newspaper column on legal affairs for four years.

His acquaintances too are fulsome in their endorsement of him. “Diligent”, “obsessive about details”, “relentless”, “generous”, “very sweet” and much “understated” are some of the adjectives used to describe Vahanvati. He is also said to be a “great raconteur”. A perceptive profile in Caravan, however, brought out a disconcerting detail. Vahanvati claimed that when his father died, he did not even have the resources to bury his body. He also claimed that he had no fascination for fancy stuff and pointed to an array of modest pens on the table. But Vahanvati’s son later told the interviewer that his father had one of the most extensive collection of expensive pens at his farmhouse.

 Why would the A-G be so economical with the truth on such a petty issue?

 There is no clear answer.

In a rare interview he gave to Misbah, a Dawoodi Bohra journal, after becoming the A-G, Vahanvati had spelled out his ambition. “I want to go down in history as the first attorney-general who really tackled the problem of judicial refo­rms.” But obviously Vahanvati has not been able to do so, pleading that he has become far too busy fighting legal battles for his masters. His critics and well-wishers are, however, left wondering whether he has served the country equally well.

கடன்பட்டார் நெஞ்சம் போல்..

நீதிநாயகம் சந்துரு தி இந்து  நவம்பர் 1, 2013

கடன்பட்டார் நெஞ்சம் போல் கலங்கினான் இலங்கை வேந்தன் என்ற அருணாசலக் கவிராயரின் பாடலையொத்து வங்கிக் கடனாளிகள் கலங்குவதில்லை. கடன் வசூல் வேட்டையில் இருக்கும் வங்கிகளோ “இன்று போய் நாளை வா” என்ற கம்பரின் காவிய வரிகளை கடனாளிகளிடம் கூறுவதில்லை.

வட்டிக்குக் கடன் வாங்கி திருப்பித் தராதவர்களிடம் வசூல் செய்ய முன்னொரு காலத்தில் வங்கிகள் உரிமையியல் நீதிமன்றத்தையே நாடின. இறுதி உத்தரவு பெற்று பின்னர் தொடரப்படும் முதல் மற்றும் இரண்டாம் மேல்முறையீடுகளையும் சந்தித்து, உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்தில் தொடுக்கப்படும் 

மேல்முறையீட்டையும் முறித்து பெற்ற இறுதித் தீர்ப்பாணையில் வழங்கப்பட்ட தொகையை வசூலிக்க நிறைவேற்றுமனு போட்டு, கடனாளிகளின் சொத்துகளைப் பகிரங்க ஏலமிட்டு வரும் பணத்தை எடுத்துக்கொள்ள ஆண்டுகள் பலவாயின.

சிவில் கோர்ட்களில் சிக்கித் தவிப்பதை மாற்ற 1993ல் வங்கிகள் மற்றும் நிதி நிறுவனங்கள் கடன் வசூலிக்கும் சட்டத்தின்படி கடன் வசூலிக்கும் தீர்ப்பாயங்களும் மேல்முறையீட்டுத் தீர்ப்பாயங்களும் உருவாக்கப்பட்டன. இருப்பினும், கடன் வசூலில் முன்னேற்றம் ஏதும் காணப்படவில்லை.

இத்தீர்ப்பாயங்களின் இடைக்கால உத்தரவுகளை எதிர்த்து உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் ரிட் மனுக்கள் தாக்கல் செய்து வழக்குகளை தாமதப்படுத்தவே கடனாளிகள் முற்பட்டனர்.

வழக்குகள் நிலுவையில் உள்ளபோதே கடனீட்டு ஆவணச் சொத்துகள் கை மாறுவதையும், விற்கப்படுவதையும் தடுக்கவும் இறுதித் தீர்ப்பாணைக்கு காத்திராமல் சொத்துகளைக் கைப்பற்றி விற்பதன் மூலம் கடன் தொகையை எடுத்துக் கொள்ளவும் 2002ல் கடனீட்டு ஆவணங்கள் மற்றும் நிதி சார்ந்த சொத்துகள் புனரமைப்புச் சட்டம் இயற்றப்பட்டது.

 வழக்கு தொடராமலேயே ஜாமீனாக கொடுத்த சொத்து விற்பனையைத் தடுத்து, அச்சொத்துகளை பொது ஏலத்தின் மூலம் விற்று கடன் தொகையை பெற உதவியது. வங்கிகள் பல சட்ட கவசங்களைப் பூண்டும், வரவேண்டிய கடன்கள் வாராக்கடன்களாகவே நின்றுவிட்டன.

தனியார் வங்கிகள் கடைப்பிடித்த நெறியற்ற வசூல் முறைகள் கடனாளிகளிடமிருந்து அபயக்குரல்களை எழுப்பின. தேசியமயமாக்கப்பட்ட வங்கிகளும் நெறிமுறை தவிர்த்த கடன் வசூல் வேட்டையைக் கைவிடாததால் கட்டப் பஞ்சாயத்துகள் மூலம் கடன்கள் வசூலிக்கப்பட்டன.

 கமிஷன் முறையில் கடன் தொகையை வசூலிக்க நியமித்த தண்டல் முகவர்களின் (தாதாக்கள்) அடாவடித்தனமும் கடனில் வாங்கிய வாகனங்களை நடுரோட்டில் கைப்பற்றிச் சென்ற நிகழ்வுகளும் தொடர்ந்தன.

இதைப்பற்றி வந்த வழக்குகளில் உச்ச நீதிமன்றமும் உயர் நீதிமன்றமும் வங்கிகளின் முறையற்ற நடவடிக்கைகளுக்குக் கண்டனம் தெரிவித்தன. 2002ம் வருடத்திய சட்டத்தின் கீழ் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க சொத்துகளின் ஆவணங்களை, தனியார் கம்பெனிகளிடம் வசூல் செய்ய ஒப்படைத்ததில் பல முறைகேடுகள் நடந்தன.

கடனாளிகளும் கடனை திருப்பித் தராமல் பல மோசடி உத்திகளைக் கையாண்டனர். பெரும் கடன் பெற்றும் திருப்பித் தராதோரின் புகைப்படங்களை செய்தித்தாள்களில் வெளியிட வங்கிகள் முன்வந்த செயலுக்கு சென்னை உயர் நீதிமன்றம் தடைவிதிக்காதது மட்டுமின்றி மோசடிப் பேர்வழிகளின் திட்டங்களை முறியடிக்க வங்கிகளும் புது உத்திகளைக் கையாள வேண்டியுள்ளதென்றும், தனிப்பட்டோரின் அந்தரங்கம் பாதிக்கப்படுவதாகக் கூறுவது ஏற்கமுடியாது என்றும் தீர்ப்பளித்தது. 

ஆனால் பம்பாய் மற்றும் கேரள உயர் நீதிமன்றங்கள் வங்கிக் கடனாளிகளின் புகைப்பட வெளியீட்டு அச்சுறுத்தலுக்கு சட்ட அடிப்படை இல்லை என்றும் அவர்களது அந்தரங்கம் புனிதமானதென்றும் தீர்ப்பளித்துள்ளன. 

கடனாளிகளின் அந்தரங்கங்கள் புனிதமானவையா என்ற முடிவு உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்திடமே உள்ளது

‘கொடாக் கண்டர்களுக்கும், விடாக் கண்டர்களுக்கும் இடையிலான’ போட்டிகள் அதுவரை தொடரும்.

குறையொன்றுமில்லை

 நீதிநாயகம் சந்துரு தி இந்து  நவம்பர் 6, 2013

கடமையைத்தானே செய்தோம், அதற்கு வழியனுப்பு விழா அரசு செலவில் மனித ஆற்றல் விரயத்துடன் தேவையில்லை என்ற கருத்திற்கு ஓய்வு விழாவில் நீதிபதி சுதந்திரம் எதிர்வினையாற்றியுள்ளார். 

வரவேற்பு விழா போல் விடையனுப்பு விழாவை ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதில் தவறில்லை எனக்கூறிய அவர், அவ்விழாவிற்கான அரசு செலவினம் பற்றியும் மனித ஆற்றல் விரயத்தைப் பற்றியும் ஏதும் குறிப்பிடவில்லை. 

காலையில் அரசு வாகனத்தில் வந்திருப்பினும் மாலையில் சொந்த வாகனத்தில் வீடு திரும்பப்போவதாகவும், நிச்சயமாக ரயிலில் பயணிக்கப்போவதில்லை என்றும் பலத்த கைதட்டல்களுக்கிடையே கூறினார்.

நீதிபதிகளுக்குள்ள வசதிகளையும் சலுகைகளையும் குறிப்பிட்ட அவர் மகிழ்ச்சியுடன் பணியாற்றியதாகவும், ஓய்வூதிய விதிகளைத் தவிர குறையொன்றுமில்லை என்றும் குறிப்பிட்டார். பணியை திருப்திகரமாக செயலாற்றியிருந்தாலும் அதுபற்றிய மதிப்பீட்டை செய்யவேண்டியது வக்கீல்களே என்றும் குறிப்பிட்டார்.

ஒருவர் நீதிபதியாகும் முன்பு எவ்வித தரவுகள் அடிப்படையில் நீதிபதியாகிறார் என்பது பொது அறிவுக்குக் கிட்டாத விஷயம். பத்தாண்டுகள் உயர்நீதிமன்ற வக்கீலாகவோ, மாவட்ட நீதிபதி பொறுப்பில் இருந்தாலோ நீதிபதி பதவிக்குத் தகுதியானவராகக் கருதப்படுவர்.

 அரசியலமைப்புச் சட்டத்தில் சொல்லப்படாத வேறு காரணிகள் கணக்கில் கொள்ளப்பட்டிருந்தால் அவை பொதுப்படையாக அறிவிக்கப்படாத காரணிகளாகவே இருக்கின்றன. நீதிபதிகள் நியமனம் பற்றிய கோப்புக் குறிப்புகளை தருமாறு மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் இந்திரா ஜெய்சிங் போட்ட வழக்கை உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் தள்ளுபடி செய்து நியமனக் கோப்புகளின் ரகசியத்தை உறுதி செய்தது.

குடியரசுத் தலைவரால் நீதிபதியாக நியமிக்கப்பட்ட ஒருவர், நிரூபிக்கப்பட்ட தவறான நடத்தைக்காகவோ, இயலாமைக்காகவோ மட்டுமே நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் பெரும்பான்மை உறுப்பினர்களின் வாக்குப்பதிவின் மூலம் பதவி நீக்கப்படுவர். 

இயலாமைக்காக யாரும் இதுவரை நீக்கப்பட்டதில்லை. முறையற்ற சொத்துக் குவிப்பு (அ) நிர்வாக சீர்கேடு விளைவித்த செயல்களுக்காக பதவி நீக்கம் செய்ய நாடாளுமன்றம் எடுத்த மூன்று நடவடிக்கைகளும் முற்றுப் பெறாமலே முடிந்துபோயின.

நியமிக்கப்பட்ட பின் நீதிபதியின் நடவடிக்கைகளை கண்காணிக்கவோ, விமர்சனம் செய்யவோ சட்டத்தில் இடமில்லை. நீதிமன்ற வராந்தாக்களில் நடைபெறும் கிசுகிசுக்கள், அநாமதேய துண்டு பிரசுரங்கள் (அ) தலைமை நீதிபதிக்கு அனுப்பப்படும் மொட்டைக் கடிதங்கள் தவிர சுகாதாரமான விவாதங்கள், விமர்சனங்களுக்கும் இடமில்லை. 

வழக்கு விசாரிக்கும் வேகத்தைக்கொண்டு ஆமைகள் என்றும், பந்தயக் குதிரைகள் என்றும் குறிப்பிடுவதும் தீர்ப்புகள் வழங்குவதில் தாராளப் பிரபுக்கள் என்றும் கஞ்சப் பிரபுக்கள் என்றும் பட்டப் பெயர்கள் சூட்டி வக்கீல்கள் மகிழ்வதோடு சரி.

உச்ச நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்புகளை விமர்சித்து ஊடகங்கள் கட்டுரை வெளியிட்டாலும், உயர் நீதிமன்றத் தீர்ப்புகளைப் பற்றிய விமர்சனங்கள் ஊடகங்களில் வெளிவருவதில்லை. பத்து சட்டக் கல்லூரிகள் தமிழத்தில் இருப்பினும் சட்டப் பேராசிரியர்களோ, சட்ட வல்லுநர்களோ அவற்றை விமர்சிக்கத் தயங்குகின்றனர். பன்னிரண்டிற்கும் மேற்பட்ட தமிழ்நாட்டில் உள்ள சட்ட சஞ்சிகைகளில் தீர்ப்புகள் வெளிவந்தாலும் அந்த சஞ்சிகைகளின் ஆசிரியர்கள் தீர்ப்புகள் குறித்து தங்களது கருத்துகளை பதிவதைத் தவிர்த்தேயுள்ளனர்.

2001ல் டெல்லியில் வெளிவந்த ‘Wah India’ என்ற ஆங்கில இதழ் டெல்லி உயர் நீதிமன்ற நீதிபதிகளை தரவரிசைப்படுத்த ஐம்பது மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர்களின் கருத்துகளைக் கேட்டு தரவரிசையை வெளியிட்டது. அப்பத்திரிகையின் ஆசிரியர் மீது கோர்ட் அவமதிப்பு வழக்கு சுயமாக தொடரப்பட்டு அவர்கள் மன்னிப்பு கோரிய பின் விடுவிக்கப்பட்டதுடன் ‘டாப் டென்’ நீதிபதிகளைப் பட்டியலிடுவது முடிவுக்கு வந்தது.

நீதிபதிகள் பைசல் செய்யும் வழக்கு விவரங்கள் தேசிய தகவல் மையத்தில் (NICNET) தினசரி பதிவு செய்யப்பட்டு வந்தாலும் அவ்விவரங்களை தகவல் உரிமை சட்டத்தின் கீழ் வினவியோருக்கு துல்லியமாக வழங்கப்படுவதில்லை.

நீதிபதிகள் எவ்வித மதிப்பீட்டிற்கும் அப்பாற்பட்டவர்களா? 

நீதிபதி கேட்டுக்கொண்டபடி வழக்கறிஞர்கள் நீதிபதிகளை மதிப்பீடு செய்ய வாய்ப்புள்ளதா?

எப்பொறுப்பில் இருப்பினும் வள்ளுவர் வாக்கை யாரும் மறக்கக்கூடாது.

“இடிப்பாரை இல்லாத ஏமரா மன்னன்

கெடுப்பா ரிலானுங் கெடும்” (குறள்- 448)

Manish Tiwari had sounded warning bells on CBI 4 yrs ago

The Gauhati High Court's judgement yesterday nullifying
 the very existence of India's premier investigating agency,
 the Central Bureau of Investigation, shouldn't have come
 as a shock to the government. It had been warned by
 one its own: Manish Tiwari, Congress MP and
 currently minister for information and broadcasting.

GN BUREAU | NEW DELHI | NOVEMBER 08 2013

Four years ago, Tiwari had written an Issue Brief for the Observer Research
 Foundation, a prominent think tank, pointing out the legal vulnerability
of the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau, and the need to give them legal
 sanctity. Like many things, it was sound advice on deaf ears. We
reproduce the article "Legally empowering the sentinels of the nation"
 from the ORF Issue Brief of August 2009 with permission.

Full text of Tiwari's article (PDFs attached below):

The lawyer in me has always been intrigued by the legal architecture that
empowers both Tour central law enforcement and intelligence services.
 In response to a series of questions during the recently concluded budget
session of Parliament, the government provided answers that only
 underscore the ambivalence, procrastination and perhaps even
the dilemma of successive governments to break out of the status
 quo mold and  address this critical governance issue. The objective
 of this piece is to explore and navigate the legal underpinnings
 of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Serious Fraud
 Investigation office (SFIO), Intelligence Bureau and the Research
and Analysis Wing. (R&AW). The Central Bureau of Investigation
 was created by an executive order on the April 1, 1963.
However, it was really born 22 years earlier as a Special Police
Establishment in the Department of War in 1941. In 1943
 it was constituted by an ordinance into an independent
 entity, namely the Special Police Establishment (War Department),
in exercise of the Emergency powers conferred upon the then
Viceroy and Governor General of India Lord Linlithgow by
 the India and Burma (Emergency Provisions Act) 1940
 passed on June 27, 1940 by the British Parliament.
 The Emergency Provisions Act interminably extended
 the validity of ordinances promulgated by the Governor
General invoking the powers available to him under
Section 72 of the Ninth Schedule of the Government of
India Act 1935 which otherwise mandated that the
 maximum validity of an ordinance could be six months .
With the Second World War coming to a close in 1945 the said
 act stood repealed by His Majesty's Order in Council, namely
The India and Burma (Termination of Emergency) Order
 1946, which declared the end of emergency with effect from
April 1, 1946. The emergency had occasioned the passage
of the Emergency Provisions Act in the first instance.
Fearing that all acts done under the Emergency Powers Act
 would either lapse with effect from October 1, 1946 or get
extinguished as the validity period of an ordinance stood
 revived to six months as envisaged in Section 72 of the
Ninth Schedule of the Government of India Act 1935 with
 effect from April 1 1946, the government of the day promulgated
 another ordinance on September 25, 1946 called the Delhi
 Special Police Establishment (War) Department ordinance.
 On October 1, 1946 in exercise of powers conferred by the said
ordinance dated September 25, 1946 the then Federal
government mutated the Special Police Establishment
 (War Department) into the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
However this apprehension was later proved to be unfounded
 as the Supreme Court of India in an another matter challenging
the legality and life of ordinances promulgated under the
Emergency powers Act 1940 held that while the Act
 itself may have been repealed by the termination order
 of 1946; the ordinances promulgated under it are valid into
 perpetuity unless an ordinance itself had a self limiting time
 frame (Hans Raj Moolji vs State of Bombay AIR 1957 SC 497).

The ordinance of September 25, 1946 was also subsequently
 repealed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act that
came into force in November 1946, even though the 1946 ordinance
 was to remain valid till March 1947.  In the discharge of its legal
duties the CBI still functions as the Delhi Special Police
Establishment ostensibly constituted before independence,
on October 1, 1946. It is not quite clear
 as to whether a subsequent notification re-constituting the Delhi
Special Police Establishment under the said act was ever issued
as the 1946 ordinance only midwived and morphed the Special
 Police Establishment (War Department) into the Delhi Special
 Police Establishment. Jurists however may propound that the
 earlier transition is saved by the Provisions of the General Clauses
Act 1897, which is also open to dispute as to whether constitution
 of a force is a substantive right saved by the provisions of the said Act.

Before you get lost in a legal jungle let me demystify the legalese.
The CBI has no independent standing in law. Simply put it is a
piece of legal fiction whose underpinnings in law are tenuous to say
the least It still draws all its powers of investigation and arrest from
 the antiquated 1946 act which essentially being a local act provides
 that each state through an executive order under Section 6 of the said
Act has to give the Special Police Establishment, what is colloquially
called the CBI, permission to investigate particular offences in that
state. In other words the CBI can investigate a case only if
requested by the concerned state government or directed by the
 High Court or Supreme Court, except if it is a matter that pertains
 to the Central government. At various points of time in the past
 several states had revoked orders giving consent, that too with
retrospective effect to the Special Police Establishment (read CBI)
to investigate matters. The beneficiaries alas, were card carrying
members of the much maligned political class. The Supreme Court
 finally put paid to this practice in Kazi Lhendup Dorji v CBI 1994
Supp (2) SCC 116 by holding that state governments cannot
revoke consent given to the Special Police Establishment to in
vestigate and prosecute any matter with retrospective effect.
 It is also questionable whether the constitutional scheme
provides for a Central police force. Entry I and 2 of the state
list seventh schedule makes police a state subject. The moot
point is that when legislative powers are available to the Central
government in terms of Entr _ y 8 of list 1 of the seventh schedule
that speaks of a Central Bureau of intelligence and investigation _
why does the government not enact a straight and simple law
empowering the CBI rather than let it function on the basis of a
dubious piece of legislation whose basic legality is open to question.
Incidentally, the government has recently constituted the National
 Investigation Agency drawing upon these very legislative powers
mentioned herein above.Similar is the case of the Serious Fraud
Investigation office (SFIO) that has investigated 36 cases and has
filed 574 complaints for violation of various provisions of the
Companies act and the Indian Penal Code from May 2004 to July
 2009. The SFIO again draws its powers from the investigative
provisions of the Companies Act but has no independent locus
or standing under the Companies Act. That is the reason why it had
 to approach the courts to gain accesses to the Satyam scam accused,
something that should have been its inherent right given the nature
of the Satyam scam. The irony is that the SFIO, despite existing and
 operating, does not even find mention in the Companies Bill 2009
 introduced in Parliament on the August 3, 2009, what to speak
 of embedding it in a proper legal framework.The case of our
 intelligence agencies is even more interesting. In response
to a question pertaining to the legislative act or legal architecture
 from which the Intelligence Bureau draws its legal/statutory
authority or right to function the government came up with a
very quixotic response. “The Intelligence Bureau figures in Schedule
 7 of the Constitution under the Union list”. When pressed that
possibly this may not be an appropriate answer the governmen
t emphatically reiterated “The intelligence Bureau finds mention
at S.No.8 in the th Union list under the 7 Schedule of the Constitution
of India”Even an aspiring student of law knows that Article 246 (1) gives
 Parliament the exclusive right to make laws on matters enumerated
in the Union list in the seventh schedule of the Constitution. In other words
Entry 8 in the Union list enunciated in the government's response
merely gives it the legislative power to enact a statute to bring a
Central Bureau of Intelligence to be called by whatever name
(IB or BI) into existence. A mere mention of a subject in the
laundry list of legislative powers neither gives an organization life
or legitimacy. Unfortunately no such law has ever been enacted by

successive governments since the commencement of the Constitution.
 Similar is the case of India's external intelligence service, the
Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW). In response to a question about
 the law/statute which gives R&AW the powers/authority to discharge
 itsfunctions/mandate efficaciously and efficiently, the government did
not try and hide behind any obfuscation but candidly admitted,
“There is no separate/ specific statute governing the functions/mandate
 of the R&AW”. However, in 2000 following the report of the task force
on Intelligence Apparatus which examined the entire intelligence system
 in the country, a formal charter listing the scope and mandate of
the R&AW was formally approved by the government of India”.
 Contrast this with the position in various other countries of
the world. The Federal Bureau of Investigation of the US government
 draws its powers from Title 28 of the United States code.
Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) is that portion of
 the United States Code (federal statutory law) that governs
 the federal judicial system. The Serious Fraud office of the
United Kingdom draws its legal authority and powers from
the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (as amended).The impetus for
 introducing the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and creating the
 SFO was the Fraud Trials Committee Report, popularly known
as 'the Roskill Report' published in 1986. Its main recommendation
 was the setting up of a new unified organization responsible
 for the detection, investigation and prosecution of serious
fraud cases. Similarly the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
 of the United States, created by the National Security Act of
1947, was specifically empowered by the Central Intelligence
 Agency Act of 1949 (CIA Act) to carry out the duties assigned
to it by the 1947 Act. MI5, the domestic intelligence service of the
 United Kingdom, draws it's legal authority from The Security
 Services Act 1989 and its sister organization, the James Bond
Fame, MI6 or the SIS, from the 1994 Intelligence Services Act
, thereby subjecting it's activities to the scrutiny of the
British Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee.

The Foreign Intelligence Service of Russia draws
 its legal basis from the Law on Foreign Intelligence Organs
 1996. The German Federal Intelligence Service, Bundesnachrichtendienst
 (BND), draws its legal sustenance from the Federal Intelligence Service
 Law 1990. Its activities are supervised by the Parliamentary
 Control Commission (PKK) for intelligence services which in turn
 is empowered by the Law over the Parliamentary Control of
Intelligence Activities 1978. Even in Japan the Public Security
 Intelligence Agency, that post its reorganization in 1996 started
focusing upon foreign intelligence collection, is empowered
 by the Subversive Activities Prevention Law that came into
force on July 21, 1952. PSIA is credited with collecting information
on Russia, China and North Korea through their HUMINT networks.
Both from the national security and the civil liberties point of view,
 it is inappropriate to allow law enforcement and intelligence
 services to function without a sound and well defined legal basis.
There can be no case that an equivocal or indeterminate legal
mandate gives greater operational flexibility. In fact in an information
 and litigious age it has both, an inhibiting and. even worse, a
debilitating impact.It makes one shudder to think that when
 the spectre of multiple security challenges ranging from Jehadi
terrorism, economic espionage to Naxalism threaten the
sovereignty of India, the sentinels of the nation,i.e. its principal
 law enforcement and investigative agencies, are bereft of
 the armor of legal sanction and protection. It is equally
horrifying to even imagine that organizations that wield
 enormous powers of depriving people of both life and liberty
 do it in accordance with legality whose underpinnings are at best
 tentative if not completely non existent, thereby undermining
 Article 21 which lies at the heart of the Indian Constitution.
It is imperative in a democracy that every organization of
the government must draw its powers, privileges and authority
 from clearly defined legal statutes. The legal basis must not be
fuzzy but sharply defined to obviate any obfuscation about
both the intent of the legislature and the mandate it seeks to
 bestow. This ispo-facto addresses the issue of oversight
and provides the structure of checks and balances that is
critical for the healthy functioning of any constitutional
system.Maybe competing priorities edged out this critical
issue from the 100-day radar of UPA II, but to put our
democratic ethos on an even sounder footing it is
imperative to provide our central law enforcement and
 intelligence structures with proper legal shields.

Justice still a cynical phrase for common man, says CJI P Sathasivam

PTI | 9 Nov, 2013, 04.00PM 

NEW DELHI: Justice is still a cynical phrase for common man despite efforts being made to make it accessible, as it is felt that interest of litigant goes unnoticed in the "typhoon" of legal proceedings, Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam said today. 

His view was supported by senior most judge of the apex court Justice G S Singhvi, who said justice remains an "illusion" for millions of poor people. 

They were speaking on the occasion of National Legal Services Day. 

Justice Sathasivam said most of the people still believe that interest of litigants goes unnoticed in legal proceedings and steps need to be taken for changing the mindset and tospread awareness. 

"For a major segment of our demographic dividend, justice is still a cynical phrase because in common man's perception, law is being administered by our courts for law's sake and not for justice... It is the belief of most of the people of India that interest of litigant goes unnoticed in the typhoon of legal proceedings," he said. 

Justice Singhvi said it is time to "ponder over whether in 65 years we have been able to achieve the goal to provide justice for people and whether we have created an atmospherewhere everybody has equality of opportunity and status for people. 

"I still find justice is still an illusion for millions of people in the country and it is not accessible to majority of the population," he said, adding that "We, who are entrusted with the task to deliver justice, must make a pledge to bring justice at the door steps of people." 

Singhvi said the causes of injustice to the millions of people are illiteracy, lack of awareness, inordinate delay in court proceedings, litigation expenses and cumbersome procedure. He asked judges to take a humane approach in handling cases of the less privileged section of society. 

"We need to rededicate ourself for the cause of justice," he said. "I must admit and confess that Legal Service Authorities across the country have changed the scenario and justice has become accessible now."

SC stays Gauhati HC verdict, says it is concerned with all CBI cases

With PTI inputs FP 12 mins ago

After the furore over the Gauhati High Court’s verdict declaring the Central Bureau of Investigation unconstitutional, the Supreme Court today stayed the court’s verdict.

The matter was taken up for urgent hearing after the Centre appealed the High Court verdict. 

The hearing on the appeal was conducted at the residence of Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam. “There shall be a stay of operation of impugned judgement of 6 November, 2013 passed by Gauhati High Court”, the Supreme Court said in its order today.

The court refused the preliminary objection that Department of Personnel and Training is not authorised to file appeal in the matter.

It also observed that the judgement has to be stayed as the accused in two sensational cases have sought stay of the trial. “We will consider and go through the appeal filed by the Centre”, CJI P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjana Desai said. “We are concerned with all other CBI cases.

Several persons were trying to take advantage of this verdict. It was important to move as fast as possible. We worked on it overnight,” Attorney General GE Vahanvati told reporters after the hearing.

“We argued that the Gauhati High Court had asked the wrong questions, worked on the wrong premises and come to the wrong conclusion,” he added.

Dedicated legislation does not apply in this case and the executive is empowered in this case to create the CBI, Vahanvati said.

Vahanvati said that he had filed a Special Leave Petition on behalf of the Department of Personnel and Training and the court had issued notice to the petitioner in the high court.

“The petitioner asked for time till 6 December to appeal, which has been granted,” Vahanvati said.

The petitioner’s lawyer in the case however welcomed the fact that the apex court had stayed the execution of the judgement and given them the opportunity to respond in the case.

“It is expedient that the matter be first examined and then the Supreme Court decide on the matter,” DS Chaudhary, the petitioner’s lawyer in the case, told CNN-IBN.

He maintained, however, that the CBI was illegal under law.

Stating that the Gauhati High Court erred in holding that the constitution of CBI was illegal, the Centre, in its petition, told the Supreme Court that the order passed by the Gauhati HC will have widespread ramifications.

“Gauhati HC verdict would directly impact 9,000 trials and 1,000 investigations which are being done by CBI,” the Centre told the apex court.

Meanwhile, a caveat has also been filed by Narendra Kumar, on whose petition the Gauhati high court ruling had come, that he be heard before any order is passed on the Centre’s plea.

A division bench of Gauhati high court had struck down the resolution through which the CBI was set up and held all its actions as “unconstitutional”.

The bench comprising justices IA Ansari and Indira Shah had passed the verdict on a writ petition filed by Kumar challenging an order by a single judge of the High Court in 2007 on the resolution through which CBI was set up.

“We hereby…set aside and quash the impugned Resolution, dated 01.04.1963, whereby CBI has been constituted…. We do hold that the CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946,” the court had said.

“Situated thus, the actions of the CBI, in registering a case, arresting a person as an offender, conducting search and seizure, prosecuting an accused, etc., offend Article 21 of the Constitution and are, therefore, liable to be struck down as unconstitutional,” the judgement said.

It had further said the aforementioned Home Ministry resolution was “not the decision of the Union Cabinet nor were these executive instructions assented to by the President”.

The high court had also said that as per the records the Resolution, in question, cannot even be termed as the decision of the Government of India. The bench had said the Union Home Ministry was working on the assumption that there is already provision in the Constitution for creation of the CBI.

Rock bottom? Kingfisher Airlines post massive Rs 7.2 bn Q2 loss

Reuters FP Nov 8, 2013

Kingfisher Airlines Ltd, which has been grounded for more than a year, reported yet another quarterly loss with no income from operations.

Reuters

Net loss was 7.16 billion rupees for its fiscal second quarter ended September 30, compared with a net loss of 7.54 billion rupees a year earlier, Kingfisher said in a filing to the stock exchanges on Friday.

Kingfisher, once India’s no.2 carrier and headed by flamboyant liquor baron Vijay Mallya, has not flown since October last year for want of cash. Bids to revive operations have seen little success so far.

The company reiterated on Friday that it was exploring various options to recapitalise and resume operations and that talks were on with prospective investors.

Kingfisher was in talks with a foreign investor for a potential stake sale, Chairman Mallya had said on September 24, without naming any investor. Mallya has said several times in the past that the company was in talks with potential investors, but the plans have not materialised so far.