PIL as hit job

On January 20,the landmark judgment by the Chief Justices bench had ruled that the income-tax department could not tax Vodafones 11.07-billion acquisition of Hutchisons 67 per cent stake in its joint venture with the Essar Group in May 2007. However,even as the government filed a review,this PIL added its own twist Sharma alleged that the CJI did not disclose the fact that his son,Hoshnar Kapadia,was a senior manager at Ernst and Young,which had advised Vodafone on the Hutch deal,which rendered the judgment suspect. Except,of course,stringing a few keywords Kapadia,Eamp;Y,Vodafone together does not make a case. Hoshnar Kapadia was working at Eamp;Y competitor KPMG at the time,and besides,he is in the financial department at Eamp;Y,with no connection to the department that Vodafone consulted.

Public interest litigation has ushered in reform in a sweeping range of areas,from environment to economy,politics to civil rights. The PIL has also been a powerful instrument to expand access to justice. A petition like Sharmas does grave disservice to this tradition because its goal and its only goal is to smear. He has a PIL history. Last year,Sharma claimed there was a Swiss account in Rajiv Gandhis name,the court called it slanderous; he challenged Pratibha Patils nomination in the presidential election; he is behind the PIL calling for a probe into ex-CJI K.G. Balakrishnan; he has also asked for a probe into Anna Hazares funding. Sharmas latest PIL against Justice Kapadia is the kind of conspiracy-minded blather in which facts do not get in the way thats increasingly twisting public debate and discourse. It thrives on allegation and innuendo,the cheap shot and the hired gun. The only way to counter this is to,as the court did,throw it out with the full force of fact.