| |
The Wrath of Ram
(Cover
story Contn.)
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.
- 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.
| "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.
| "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
|
|
|
|
|
