Strange outpourings of legal luminaries

Legal profession demands that lawyers be opportunists and convenient twisters of logic. Opportunism done in excess attracts opprobrium. Reactions of legal luminaries to the outcome of the harassment charge against the CJI are a testimony to this.

In sexual harassment cases, law demands that anonymity of the complainant has to be ensured. The case needs to be concluded as speedily as possible so that agony for both the complainant and the accused is not extended over torturous time. But Prashant Bhushan has taken exception to in-camera proceedings and the 'haste' in completion. He complains, "An in-house committee of the CJI's colleagues which held informal proceedings in-camera without allowing the complainant a lawyer or a support person has given a hasty clean chit to the CJI."

Sanjay Hegde has contested Justice Bobde who is next only to the CJI  in seniority, heading the panel that enquired into the allegation. Why? The reasoning is as strange as it can get. "He will in all probability be the next CJI. Two of his immediate predecessors have come under public scrutiny of an unwelcome kind. The court has now chosen a status quoist denial over a serious exploration of the truth , regardless of risk. How will its actions be seen?" The insinuation is that Bobde is trying to protect himself against a possible complaint against him when he becomes the CJI. Activists are working overtime preparing affidavits against whoever becomes the next CJI?

Dushyant Dave makes a snide appeal to other judges of the Supreme Court. "Will the honourable judges stand up as the collective conscience of the Supreme Court?", he wants to know. Looking for a split in the court?

When eminent lawyers are keen on destroying the sanctity of courts in their attempts to denigrate a judge, the helpless citizen becomes more concerned about the future of the country.

Understanding 'dissent'

Dissent connotes disagreement. It is per se neither deplorable nor delightful. A committee or a court bench or a corporate / government department is expected to consist of persons capable of thinking differently from one another and thereby contributing variety and quality to decisional inputs. Lack of unanimity is therefore inherent in decisions made by such bodies. If these bodies are packed only with yes-men, unanimity will be the norm.

A lot has been written about 'dissent' among officials of the Defence Ministry especially regarding Rafale pricing decisions, among the three members of the Election Commission in their response to complaints against the election speeches of Narendra Modi and among the judges of the apex court regarding the harassment complaint against the CJI. It is ironic that the media which is supposed to be intellectually endowed and therefore ought to welcome different opinions has chosen to criticise the decisions of these institutions because of presence of dissent. It is a pity that what ought to be welcomed, is criticised as unacceptable.

Election Commission has three members and not two so that dissent does not lead to stalemate. The bench hearing the complaint against the CJI consists of three judges not to avoid dissent among the judges but to ensure that disagreement does not stifle conclusion.

The panel of three judges has now concluded that the harassment complaint against the CJI lacks substance. There is apparently a conspiracy against the CJI and an attempt to browbeat the Supreme Court. It is reported, though not confirmed, that Justice Chandrachud favoured inclusion of an outsider in the panel hearing the complaint. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. But a dissenting opinion on constitution of the panel does not make the conclusion of the three judges any less valid.

An enlightened society learns to live with and even encourage dissent without deifying or demonising it. Constructive dissent adds value to democracy and does not demean it. On the other hand, motivated dissent with a hidden agenda destroys democracy.

Supreme Court under siege

It is distressing that there is a complaint against the Chief Justice of India that he had misbehaved with a lady Junior Court Assistant. Even as it is too premature to comment on the credibility or otherwise of the complaint, it is evident that the CJI is terribly upset. Under such immense psychological pressure, one is apt to make misjudgments. This is particularly sad because the function of a judge is to arrive at judgments.

The details provided by the complainant indicate that the CJI trained and even mentored her to become a better-informed and socially a more friendly person. He is said to have called her and texted her on many occasions before October 10th and 11th, 2018. These dates are relevant because the accusation is that the CJI misbehaved with her on these days.

The complainant has forwarded appeals against her harassment to the Delhi Commission of Women, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi Anil Baijal, the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Human Rights Commission, Special Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), Special Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Chief Minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. The appeal contains elaborate and date-wise details. If the complaint is false, then some expert must have prepared it and made it cogent.

It is too early to conclude if the complaint is genuine or as some claim is intended to preclude the CJI from pronouncing judgments in some politically sensitive cases.
“The allegations regarding 11 October 2018, as well as other allegations, are completely and absolutely false and scurrilous and are totally denied,” according to the secretary-general of the Supreme Court.

Pressure is telling on the Supreme Court. Without hearing the complainant, the judges who sat in the Court on April 20, a holiday, characterised the complaint as "wild and scandalous." The judges asked the media to exercise restraint and remove such material which is undesirable. Acute embarrassment is writ large in these words.

Indian politics and judiciary are facing one crisis after another. If a citizen anxiously wonders if we are capable of governing ourselves, we need not be surprised.

Anil Ambani and Rafale contract

The French newspaper, Le Monde (literally meaning 'The World'), has reported that a telecom company of Anil Ambani received the benefit of waiver of tax dues from the French government during the time the Indian government considered placing orders for Rafale jets.

It needs to be investigated if Anil Ambani was lobbying with the Indian government on behalf of Dassault and if the tax waiver is a reward for bagging the contract. Has Narendra Modi bent over backwards to help Anil Ambani?

If  Le Monde's version of linking the waiver and the Rafale contract is correct, it will be a big slur on Narendra Modi.

Contradictions / insinuations in N.Ram's 'exclusive'

Shri N.Ram continues to exercise his proprietorial liberty to foist his 'exclusive' Rafale reports on The Hindu readers, frontpaging his innuendoes and rehashing his exaggerated spins on confidential notes prepared in the Defence Ministry. He has mastered the art of contradicting one insinuation made by him and creating another hoping that if one does not stick, the other would.

I express my views with both anguish and anxiety, anguished by the fall of a reliable newspaper into a purveyor of partisan news and perverted views, anxious to know how the other family members (after all, The Hindu is family-owned despite the occasional veneer of professionalism) continue to allow the newspaper to be hijacked for political purposes.

In his 'exclusive' on April 9th, Ram points out the similarities between Rafale transaction and Bofors deal. He fails to point out the major dissimilarities, namely the absence of money trail in Rafale as against the bribery-based Bofors deal and Chitra Subramaniam-guided Bofors investigation as against sycophants-assisted misplaced investigation into Rafale agreement.

In one place, Ram discovers the 'discomfort' of Manohar Parikkar 'evidenced' by the latter's reference to the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) for approval of deviations from the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) instead of approving them himself. Ram does not utilise his 'investigative' skills to discover why P.Chidambaram arrogated to himself the Cabinet powers in Aircel-Maxis case. It is journalism turned on its head when investigations are avoided when they are needed and undertaken when there is no reason. These two instances bring out the difference between Modi and Manmohan as a leader. Ministers in Modi's ministry are not afraid of seeking the Cabinet approval when necessary whereas in Manmohan's ministry there was licence to do anything so long as Manmohan was not brought into the scene. Manmohan Singh explained this as coalition-dharma.

In another place, in sharp contrast, Ram insinuates as to why Parikkar did not refer to CCS for approval of deviations though they had earlier been approved by CCS in a different reference. Ram's incoherent and slanted investigation is amusing.

Ram is aware and has noted that 'offset' is usually rendered in French as 'contrepartie' (compensation). Yet his prejudiced mind forces Ram to cynically observe that an internal Dassault document revealed that "a senior executive of the French group told staff representatives that the joint venture with Reliance was agreed as a 'compensation' ".

I don't know how many people read these 'exclusive' reports. I am eager to know if even Ram is reading the reports which are possibly prepared by his assistants with the only objective of derailing Modi.

The Hindu's disbelief of the Indian government

The Hindu's Readers' Editor, in his sermon on April 8,  has  preferred to give greater credence to a report appearing in an American magazine 'Foreign Policy' than to the version of the Indian government on India shooting down an F-16 employed by Pakistan. In an insinuating tone, he has noted that authorities tend to hide behind anonymity. "The Indian Air Force's version was circulated through the news agency IANS."

Fine. Source of credible information should not be anonymous. I assumed that since The Hindu has trusted the Foreign Policy report, the identity of persons who have concluded that India's version is wrong must have been disclosed.

The Foreign Policy report says. " Two senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the situation told Foreign Policy that U.S. personnel recently counted Islamabad’s F-16s and found none missing." Who are these two officials? The report does not divulge.

The report further adds, "One of the senior U.S. defense officials with direct knowledge of the count said that Pakistan invited the United States to physically count its F-16 planes after the incident as part of an end-user agreement signed when the foreign military sale was finalized. " Who is this official?

The Hindu's policy seems to be that you can trust an anonymous report if it contradicts the Indian government. Otherwise, no. This is the consistency of jaundiced eyes.

Rafale and 2019 elections

The Hindu CSDS-Lokniti pre-poll survey conducted in the last week of March brings out an interesting aspect about the impact of Rafale allegations on popular perception.

52% of the people who are aware of Rafale transaction desire that NDA should get another chance at government. This is against only 39% among those who are not aware of the transaction.

What does this mean? Either the people are convinced about the genuineness and integrity of the transaction or the critics have done a bad job of analysing the transaction.

Will The Hindu take note of this curious finding and stop misinterpreting the transaction? Or will the newspaper stop supporting CSDS-Lokniti?