By changing the legal team representing the country in the arbitration proceedings in the Dabhol case, the UPA government suddenly finds itself on uncertain ground. Initially, the former attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, had been asked to continue representing India, even after the new government had come into office. The finance ministry, which will ultimately have to dole out the $6 billion if India should lose the case, had suggested that the earlier legal team be allowed to continue. The expenditure incurred on the work done by the earlier team would be wasted, and the replacement of solicitors would considerably increase the expenses on the litigation. More importantly, it would result in a weakening of India’s ability to defend the case. Despite these protests — and more protests from the Maharashtra chief secretary who held that it would be unwise to change the legal team and had specifically requested that the documents given to the Central government and the legal team not be passed on to others without consent — the law ministry went ahead and sacked the entire old team at the last minute.The issue has now assumed the dimensions of a crisis because India is now not able to find a new Queen’s Council to represent India’s interests in the case. India has now asked for more time. Many solicitors have been approached but they have turned down the offer on the grounds of conflict of interest. If India loses the case it could also open up a Pandora’s Box in terms of other claims that could be made in similar circumstances. This is a landmark case. The cost of changing the team is not simply the higher legal expenses, which would have to be paid to the new legal team and the increase in the probability of paying out $ 6 billion, but also more cases like this.While the law ministry is free to choose whoever it likes to represent the Government of India after a change in the ruling party at the Centre, it would appear churlish to do so given that there was no complaint against the earlier team in terms of its handling of the case and the fact that the deadline was drawing close. Any new team, however competent, would mean more time and more expenses. The fact that until September the old team was actually allowed to continue to function shows that, initially, the wisdom of persisting with the status quo had prevailed. It is not clear what led to a change in heart and why the government decided to take this risk. The amount to be paid if India should lose the case would amount to nearly 1 per cent of GDP and it will be tax payers of this country who will ultimately have to pay. The reasons for the change should therefore be made clear to the public. The shoddy handling of this case could turn out to be a very expensive mistake indeed.
