THE NATIONAL
LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR
JUDICIAL
TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS
304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS
Marg, Near Old Custom House, Fort Mumbai- 400 023
#47, GL Sanghi Chambers Block, Supreme Court Campus, New Delhi-110 001
Cell # +91 98205 35428 , #+91 9769110823, Off:
01123381068
|
|||
GENERAL SECRETARY
MRS. ROHINI M AMIN
|
VICE PRESIDENTS
R. P. LUTHRA
& A.K. DEY
|
PRESIDENT
MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA
|
NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
COL.(Rtd.)VED
PRAKASH, A. CHAUDHARY& R. PANCHAL
|
JOINT SECRETARIES
A. C.
PHILIP (LTGN.),C. J. JOVESON (PGNDA.), JACOB SAMUEL(LTGN.),
|
|||
13th Sept.,
2016
To
Mr.Fali
S.Nariman,
Sr.Advocate,
Supreme Court of India.
AN OPEN REFLECTIVE
LETTER
Most
Respected Demigod of Indian Legal Fraternity,
From a
distance I had a great respect and reputation for your status and stature
before the bench and the special status your good self enjoyed as a eminent
constitutional expert. With that repute,
when I tried to understand your good self from close quarters, many a halo
evaporated step by step and one by one! What halo remains is the inconsistency
you enjoy in your opinions and the special rights to practice in violation of
the BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RULES (Rules made by the Bar Council of India in
exercise of its rule making powers under the Advocates Act, 1961) PART - VI
,RULES GOVERNING ADVOCATES, CHAPTER – II, Rule-6. Of course, as an advocate,
you are capable of coming out with illogical and unfounded arguments to defend
illegalities committed by yourself!
But
this letter is prompted, not by any of them, but by your unsolicited advice to
the members of the Supreme Court Collegium, which is your brain child out of a
brainwave, to quit or be silent. Your good self has all the right to give
unsolicited advice, even though ill conceived to suit your personal interests. But,
for which to tag the ‘people’s understanding’ with your personal opinion to
draw a false legitimacy which is devoid to it originally is stretching it too
much.
As
aforesaid, you are the sole creator of the unconstitutional Collegium system of
appointments and surely derived personal benefit out of it. But, when the
judges-2 judgment (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v.
Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441) decided that the then appointments system, where
the executive and judiciary had co-equivalent roles, was unconstitutional, all the
judges so declared were declaring their own appointments as unconstitutional
and maintained that the appointments to Supreme Court and various High Courts
shall be the recommendations of the Collegium. The irony is that none of those
judges felt it appropriate to resign and declare that their appointments process
was flawed! Even being the great god father of the collegium, your good self
didn’t demand the resignation of the judges, who declared their own appointment
process as flawed and ill conceived!!! May be, it suited you better at that time!
What gives better headlines can be your expert opinion of the day!
But, subsequently,
when your good self preferred to write an autobiography, you criticized the
collegium system and went to the extent of saying: “A
Case I won-but which I would prefer to have lost.”[1] Of course, the order of the day gives it a
better chance for big headlines! Hence that formed your expert opinion! Being a
doyen of the Supreme Court Bar, you are entitled to flip flop on your expert
opinion. That is surely not a shameful act or conduct. Of course,
propriety of opinion is not a question
to be followed by your good self. It's all for those who express their opinion,
which is against your personal interest. It is wrong for the nation to expect
ethics and propriety form an expert like you!
Further,
when your son was appointed as the judge of the Supreme Court of India, your
thanks giving to the collegium multiplied. On that point of time, the collegium
became a righteous system for you, once again! Your submissions before the
Constitutional Bench, which declared the NJAC Act,2014 as unconstitutional,
began with an open thanks giving to the collegium, for elevating your son
directly from Bar to the Supreme Court of India. And that is your national interest!
Further
you went ahead to argue for more than two and half days, on the single point
that the parliament passed the said Act
in August,2014, whereas you were well aware that the said Act was signed by the
President of India on 31st day of December,2014(Read with Article 79
of the Constitution). Either your good
self deliberately misguided the Constitutional Bench or else you are ignorant
of the definition of the Parliament, as given in Article 79. It ultimately resulted in the present crisis
of credibility, which the judiciary is facing before the nation.
On
15.04.2015, you expressed the opinion before the Constitution Bench that the
member of the collegium shall not be presiding judge of the case in which the
conflict of interest is involved. You supported the recusal demand raised by Adv.Mathews
J.Nedumpara. But on the very next day, your good self argued that the member of
the collegium, presiding over the constitution bench to decide the validity of
NJAC Act,2014 is not a conflict of interest! Of course, there was a change by
the face. What matters to you most are not values, but face values! And that remains as your sole expertise. The turnaround of thyself, as a lead advocate from the petitioner side on the
principles applied, looking only on to the face value, amounted to non
sequetor, an inconsistent statement to the principle upon which the recusal was
sought. Whether you had something against the previous presiding judge
personally to seek his recusal was not revealed. But on the question of same
principle, when the same person made totally opposite stand, whether the said
difference in stand over 24 hours is founded upon personal equations or
principles of natural justice is a matter yet to be disclosed. With respect to
the principles employed, what your good self made was non sequetor, nay, an
inconsistent statement. It is non constat, what was the compulsion to take
inconsistent stand on the same legal issue over a period of 24 hours. Of
course, it is not new to you and there is no reason to realise and understand,
what is in the best interest of institution as well as that of nation. After
all who cares for it! Only thing what matters is to modify the arguments, so as
to camouflage all the personal and vested interests and advance it in the name
of national interest! If you can master in this art, you will be victorious in
this war. All others against your personal interest can be tarnished as anti
nationals and maverick people. Of course, this modus operandi is not sui
generis, or unique to the instant
situation, but widely used in political arena also. After all, principles are
for convenience, which change it's colours according to circumstances! As Nani
Palkhivala said, “In India today there are shortage of many commodities, but
nothing is so scarce as intellectual integrity. Closer contact with the world
will convince you that intellectual integrity is a much rarer quality than
financial integrity.”[2]
In a
private book releasing function conducted in the Rashtrapathi Bhavan, on 07th
April,2016 your good self expressed and addressed directly from the dais to His
Excellency, the President of India, floating all propriety, and said that
you sought to underscore the importance of dissent and republican form
of democracy in India. You even continued: “for an effective democracy to
function, there must be dissent and some consequential disturbance as well.” But, now, when the collegium member raised a
dissenting voice, your good self wants to thump him down and discredit him. Not only that, you demanded his scalp on a
platter!!!!!!! It means, and directs that only your dissent shall be heard, and
accepted and none others have the right to dissent! Of course, you have the
right to float all morality and ethics of public life and legal practice.
It's
your exclusive service to thyself which has led the nation and it's judiciary
in to a deep crisis of loss of credibility and reputation. The generations to
come will surely understand your good self, who threw the dignity of the higher
Courts, especially the Supreme Court into the wilderness by throwing the constitutional
harmony of the executive and judiciary into constitutional stalemate, solely to
serve your personal ends. Your good self never was concerned about the future
of the nation and it's penniless little citizens.
Once
you can practice before a court in which your close relative is a judge, in
violation of the Bar Council Rules, you consider yourself as omnipotent even to
violate any law at any degree. For this
act of violation of Rules, you need not to have any shame at all. The reason
being, you can never be ashamed. If you could be, you would never have demanded
the resignation of a sitting Supreme Court judge for exposing the opacity and
futility of the collegium. Certainly the nation does not have any better
expectation from you!
[2] The convocation address, The University of Bangalore, 15th
January,1972..
With
most respectful regards,
Yours
sincerely,
(Adv.A.C.Philip)
Jt.Secretary,
THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN
FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS
No comments:
Post a Comment