Cover Story: Politics: The Wrath of Ram


	August 07, 2000

	METRO TODAY \| DAILY NEWS \| ASTROLOGY \| ARCHIVES \| INDIA TODAY \| HOME
	Cover Story \| Columns \| Nation \| States \| Newsnotes \| From the Editor in Chief \| Editorials \| Eyecatchers \| Voices \| Books \| Cinema \| Heritage \| Chess \| Aviation \| Neighbours \| Music \| Cricket \|Offtrack \| Centrestage \|Issue Contents

The Wrath of Ram
(Cover story Contn.)

India Today issue dated August 07, 2000

Interview with Ram Jethmalani

Replying five days later to "Mr Attorney-General", Jethmalani reminded Sorabjee that Aggarwal was appointed a panel lawyer by his predecessor M. Thambidurai, of the AIADMK. He wrote that Aggarwal had been briefed not by his ministry but by the Commerce Ministry, headed by Murasoli Maran of the DMK. "Your insinuation ... is unwarranted and impertinent." The epistolary battle escalated with Sorabjee retorting that Aggarwal was indeed briefed by the Commerce Ministry official on the advice of an official of the Law Ministry.

Sorabjee quoted Samuel Johnson in conclusion: "Sir, a man must keep his friendship in constant repair." By then, however, the relationship had become irreparable due to issues much larger than Aggarwal. Jethmalani felt that Sorabjee, having got accustomed to a weak AIADMK minister during 1998-99, was resentful of his formidable presence. "I believe," Jethmalani said in his resignation statement, "that Soli Sorabjee had never been comfortable with me... Before I took over he seemed to exercise considerable control over my ministry because he was Jayalalitha's lawyer for long and the Law Ministry was in charge of Thambidurai".

whether or not Sorabjee felt threatened is a matter of conjecture. However, after Jethmalani took over, a major battle over turf, ego, politics and legal issues erupted. Examples:

TRAI case: During the tenure of the caretaker government last year, Sorabjee became the arbiter in a dispute involving cellular service licencees and then communications minister Jagmohan over unpaid licence fees. The licensing policy was changed into a revenue-sharing policy at Sorabjee's instance. Jethmalani holds him responsible for a Rs 4,000-crore revenue loss.

Pro-Jayalalitha notification: In 1998, when Jayalalitha threatened to withdraw support to the NDA if it did not transfer the cases against her to more supportive courts, Sorabjee advised the government to oblige her. Ultimately the Supreme Court struck down the notifications. Jethmalani resigned in protest but it wasn't accepted.

Solicitor-general's appointment: Jethmalani's candidate was S.C. Jaisinghani, who had fought the Kissa Kursi Ka case during the 1977-79 Janata regime. Sorabjee pushed his one-time junior, Harish Salve, and won.

Lawyers' strike: The Bar Council and lawyers were up in arms against Jethmalani earlier this year for pressing the Civil Procedure Code amendments which would have curtailed appeals. Sorabjee was critical of the move.

Constitution Review: Jethmalani disapproved of Sorabjee's inclusion in the commission on the ground that no government law officer should be a member of a supposedly independent body with political functions.

Hinduja connection: Jethmalani being distantly related to the Hindujas, there is a perception of him shielding those involved in the Bofors case. Jethmalani now accuses Sorabjee of a conflict of interests by advising the Hindujas in their dispute with the Power Ministry over counter-guarantees in the Andhra Pradesh project.

FLYING OFF THE HANDLE

"The tradition of the Bar is never tell a judge he is wrong. A lawyer has to respectfully guide the judge out of his error ... your letter to my prime minister proceeded on two assumptions, both of which are erroneous. Now that you tell me, I have still not 'prayed' for consultation, I formally hereby do so. There is no prescribed proforma, I hope."

Jethmalani to Chief Justice Anand, July 20, 2000

"The tone of your letter is highly objectionable, its contents are distressing ... Of course, there is no format for consultation excepting requirement of decorum and dignity which you seem to ignore ... In view of the offensive tenor of your letter, no useful purpose would be served by any further correspondence on this matter."

Chief Justice Anand to Jethmalani, July 21, 2000

Sorabjee, however, was only one of Jethmalani's antagonists. His battle with the chief justice of India was more ominous. The present leadership of the Supreme Court has a soft spot for Sorabjee as he was the architect of the strategy for defeating former chief justice M.M. Punchhi's idea of limiting the consultative process for judicial appointment to a handful of judges. Following Sorabjee's advice, there was a presidential review and Justice Punchhi's interpretation was discarded.

Jethmalani lost the confidence of the high judiciary as much as Sorabjee gained it. A believer in judicial appointments being effected through a National Judicial Commission, Jethmalani came into conflict with Anand who wants the status quo to persist.

STAMP OF APPROVAL

"I have examined the records of the last 20 years and I find that not only is there no such convention, the convention is quite to the contrary. No consultation has taken place when a retired judge of the high court has been appointed to a commission."

Jethmalani to Chief Justice Anand, June 29, 2000

"I had told you during our discussions that since you would like to consult me on all such matters, do not make a departure... I am afraid this has not been done even now. I can give my comments regarding a candidate's suitability only if I am consulted."

Chief Justice Anand to Jethmalani, July 17, 2000

The conflict turned into confrontation when Kalchakra, a magazine run by Vineet Narayan of the Jain hawala case fame, published allegations of impropriety against Anand's wife. "I called on him (chief justice) at his residence," states Jethmalani. "He admitted to me that he believed I had encouraged this publication." The doubt snowballed into a feud when Jethmalani got the Cabinet to appoint retired Patna High Court chief justice B.M. Lal as chairman of the MRTP Commission, without consulting Anand. An angry Anand wrote to the prime minister, complaining about overturning a "settled convention". When Vajpayee referred the letter to Jethmalani, he shot off a "Dear Chief Justice of India" letter, setting off yet another incendiary chain of exchanges. It culminated in the highest judge labelling Jethmalani as "intemperate" and "impertinent" and breaking off all further discussions. This was on the day when, during the Srikrishna Commission case, the chief justice of India doubted if the present Government was "civilised".

THE BIG FIGHT

The Jethmalani-Sorabjee feud began over a letter the attorney-general wrote to Law Secretary R.L. Meena on February 10 this year about B.P. Aggarwal, a government standing counsel. The charge against Aggarwal was that he took inordinately long -- between 176 and 361 days -- to draft appeals on behalf of the Government in 11 cases causing it a loss of Rs 517 crore as the limitation period had expired and the Supreme Court dismissed the cases.The Central Board of Excise and Customs asked the Law Ministry to examine whether the delay was intended to benefit defendants in cases where the Revenue Department was the appellant. Jethmalani's contention was that all the cases happened before he took charge but when Sorabjee was the attorney-general. He felt by directly writing to his secretary, the attorney-general was trying to usurp his powers. A similar turf problem also arose over the dismissal of one Geeta Luthra as standing counsel.

The Jethmalani episode isn't over. Lacking a political base, he is expendable in government. But he is a dogged foe and a brilliant lawyer. Besides, he has an association with the RSS dating back to the Emergency, has defended the home minister but is not particularly enamoured of those around the prime minister. He also has nothing to lose, is naturally reckless and, consequently, feared. That is the trouble with Mr Jethmalani.

-with S. Prasannarajan

Top

Back | Next