Three-judge bench can revise or remove the order of a two-judge bench: Attorney General

Today I appeared in the BCCI matter for the first time on behalf of three organisations. It was not generally the Government of India, but it was essentially the Ministry of Railways, the tri-services of the armed forces and the association of Indian Universities. All these three bodies are the constituents of the BCCI, they are three out of the 30 full members. They have a say in the affairs of BCCI and they continue to do so over the last 50 years. These bodies promote cricket, they have academies, they give job to cricketers and they have stadiums. In one of the orders passed by the SC in the BCCI case, these three organisations have been downgraded, their full membership has been taken away and their invaluable vote in the affairs of the BCCI has been taken away. In the court today, I made submissions that our vote cannot be taken away and neither our status be downgraded, I also made it clear to the court that I have no love for the BCCI, I mean my clients. We are only concerned with the restoration of these two items the two bodies and the association of universities want.

Can Attorney General represent bodies like Railways?

Yes of course Railways Ministry and Armed Forces Ministry are part of Government of India.

Your argument that, under the Article 19.1c, the parent judgement is not correct means you are questioning the entire legality of the judgement ..

You must understand my immediate concern is for three of my clients. In the course of legal submissions if I have to say that a particular judgement is wrong or my client wants to project that a particular order is wrong then I am entitled to say that whether it applies to the whole judgement or part of the judgement, a latter judgement or an earlier judgment

The July 16 order curtailed the powers of your client and made them associate members, now you are asking the court to revisit the judgement, you didn’t approach the court before…

As far as the Association of Universities is concerned the court didn’t send a notice to them, actually notices have not be sent to others whose rights have been taken away. This six months difference (from the time of the order) is not a mountain that can’t be crossed. If a mistake has been made by the court or anybody else there is a process to correct it. Supreme Court is the final court, it is the apex court and it has all right. If it feels it has been wrong it can be corrected. That is what we have requested the court with all politeness.

What will be your line of argument in the next hearing?

There is also this in the order that no government servant can be constituent of its association. We told the court that the representatives of railways and armed forces will be government servants, they are not private members, the court has considered this too.

There is a concern in the country that there is a trend of flouting the SC ruling . With regard to BCCI, can you elaborate?

Let me tell you as a officer of the court judgement of the court must be respected whether you like it or not, or whether a group likes it or not, or a large body of people like it or not; there are ways and means of correcting or requesting the court to correct a judgement and that route has to be followed. You can make a plea back to the court, you can ask for a reference to a larger bench, you can ask the legislative tool — the state assembly or parliament — to enact a law to remove the basis of the judgement. These are very recognised tools to tell a court that a mistake may have been made. As long as a judgement stands, you may criticise a judgement but you have no right to flout a judgement. That right is not available in the constitution. There is no question of flouting because if you start making flouting a norm then there will be anarchy.

Have you asked for a larger bench?

I have told the court that the bigger order have been made by two-judge bench. Today there is a three-judge bench. And it is a norm and that a three-judge bench can revise or remove the order of a two-judge bench. And if there are a matter related to constitution – like the right of association or forming an association — go to a constitution bench. But for that there needs to be a debate. It has started today, the debate will go on.

What about this 9 year confusion?

There this limit of 9 years, in BCCI and also state units. That means you can be in power for 9 years in that particular association. When the order was passed it was felt that a total of 9 years (for both BCCI and state). Actually the intention was 9 years in state and 9 years in BCCI, that means it can be 18 years. That has been clarified by the court. They have said that 9 and 9 are different.