Journalism of Courage
In a rare case of a lawyer confronting a Supreme Court judge,a senior advocate Wednesday questioned the decision of a bench led by Justice G S Singhvi to adjourn a hearing in the Ratan Tata-Niira Radia tape case,causing the judge to recuse himself from the case.
Singhvi,who retires next month,said he did not want to hear the case any more,and directed the matter be placed before another bench for further hearing.
His recusal was prompted by a high-voltage courtroom drama as senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan,appearing for one of the parties,opposed his adjournment order by describing it as highly arbitrary,extremely unfair and filibustering.
The unusual episode occurred after the bench passed an order adjourning the case to December 2 for enabling Ratan Tata,the government and the CBI to file responses to an application by NGO CPIL.
The NGO has demanded action on findings of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO),which reportedly found irregularities in some business transactions after examining the Radia tapes.
Dhavan,who appeared for Open magazine,was supposed to start rebuttal arguments against Tata,who has sought action against the magazine for publishing some of the contentious conversations former corporate lobbyist Radia had with several people,including industrialists and journalists.
Tatas counsel,senior advocate Harish Salve,had already concluded his arguments and had sought strict action against media organisations for publishing the conversations.
As the bench was deferring the matter,Dhavan fervidly opposed adjournment,saying the two issues were completely different and that the SFIO report had nothing to do with the arguments related to the right to privacy and freedom of the media.
Let my lord hear me because the application by CPIL raises a totally different issue and the Tata case has nothing to do with it. I am seeking dismissal of Tatas petition with exemplary cost. I have been coming prepared to argue for the last two dates but the matter is only getting adjourned, he said.
The bench,however,retorted: They are not separate issues since prayers are linked. Tatas petition says no conversation should be published whereas CPIL wants all the conversations in public domain. We cannot hear the matter in piecemeal.
After Dhavans repeated pleas to accommodate him failed to persuade the court,the senior counsel told the bench: This is very unfortunate and extremely unfair. Let me say this that it is most upsetting that the media is being denied an opportunity to defend its actions when Tata has already concluded his arguments.
Not responding to his outburst,Singhvi called for the next matter and said,very well.
Dhavan shot back: My lordship can say very well but let me say this is highly arbitrary and filibustering. I dont want to say this at a time when my lordship is retiring but I am very sorry to say this that it is highly unfortunate that my lord has made up his mind not to hear me.
Singhvi replied: Go on feeling sorry Dr Dhavan.
The counsel responded he was indeed feeling sorry for the system.
Singhvi then said he did not want to hear the case anymore. Every counsel has a right to say things but in view of these submissions,we would not want to hear this case anymore…this matter should be heard by some other bench. Let this matter be placed before some other bench.
Salve and ASG Paras Kuhad,who was appearing for the CBI,sought to mollify the bench saying they were sorry for the counsels outburst but Singhvi had made up his mind. We cannot guarantee culture of anybody, the judge said. Dhavan had left the courtroom by then.
