The experiences bestowed by Kanchi-Mahaswami — Part 41
Parasaran’s honesty & dispute within the arms of the government
https://www.thuglak.com/thuglak/main.php?x=curissue/ninaithu_paarkiraen_11_08_2021.php
Author : Sri S.Gurumurthy
Translator : C.Rangarajan
In April 1982, a three-member bench at the Supreme court took up the writ petition filed by the Express group. The case was conducted went on for 18 months and the proceedings got completed on 22nd Sep 1983. The final verdict came in Oct 1985. This case created tremors throughout the Nation and particularly in Delhi too, amidst the intellects. Many leading lawyers discussed the misuse of authority, political constitution & Press freedom. Such finer discussions were heard by the lawyers and journalists throughout the country.
The journals were carrying the proceedings in detail. Since I had a major responsibility in preparing for the case, I was further tasked to assist the senior presiding lawyer of the express group, Fali Nariman. Though I was not a lawyer, the court allowed me to sit behind him and counsel him. It gave me a unique privilege to assist some senior lawyers of this country in many famous cases — Fali Narima, Soli Sorabjee, Ram Jethmalani, K.K.Venugopal, Ashok Desai, Anil Divan, Harish Salve. I should fairly admit that the name that I got in the express case helped me to enhance my reputation and helped in assisting the senior lawyers between 1980–2005.
Parasaran’s honesty
In the beginning, the then solicitor general K.Parasaran was the government attorney. The central government had asked him to justify their blatant acts like demolition, land grabbing. He listened to Nariman for 3 days in court and concluded that the government was at fault. He sought some time from the court to convince the government to drop the charges against the express. This helped a lot since the government attorney himself had mentioned that there was a justice on our side. Nariman had agreed to postpone it and the court defer the proceedings to 23rd August.
On 23rd August, Parasaran had submitted to the court that the government wanted to continue this case but he was not willing to continue & requested to withdraw himself from the case. This shook everyone in the court. His conscience was clear and did not allow him to continue anymore in the case. It became a prestige issue for the government. Moreover, there was a perfect heady mix of politics, law, authority & ego in this case.
The Solicitor general was next to the attorney general in the hierarchy and his withdrawal was not a small matter. He gave the right advice to the government to withdraw from the case and the government did not pay heed to it. This was the crux of the case. Remember the time and we need to admire the moral compass that was guiding him in the right direction. It helped to stir up the collective conscience of the court too and made everyone (Judges, lawyers & journalists) realize that there was no justice on the part of the government. Parasaran stance became the talk of the court. Since he hailed from Tamilnadu, I too felt proud about his withdrawal.
Indira’s government was adamant about their stance and did not like his advice. But, he was elevated to the position of attorney general in the due course of time. My respect towards him grew many more in the years to come. In many cases, I had helped his opponent in court. He would encourage me to play my role properly and would appreciate it in front of others. I felt very shy. He is a very tall personality.
The case that wasted Court’s time & public money
While reading the judgment, Justice A.N.Sen appreciated the stance of Parasaran. The case had many twists & turns. The court proceedings ended in Sep 1983. The government was indecisive; the case continues to stay in the limelight due to the antagonistic position taken by Jagmohan. The Judge indirectly admonished the government for wasting the court’s time and public money. It helped me to get two more views about the government — one, the government is not a single, atomic thinking entity and multiple forces stretch the government in different directions.
Dispute among governement pleaders
In the case, the government was 1st defendant, Jagmohan was the 2nd defendant, Delhi corporation was the 3rd one and the union land administration officer was the 4th one. Since Parasaran had recused himself from the court, Jagmohan had submitted that he would be representing all four defendants. He gave the necessary documents to the court. But the Judges opposed this move. They consulting with the Attorney general of India, L.N.Sinha, and requested him to conduct the case on behalf of the government.
Later, one more confusion emerged. During the case, L.N.Sinha had reached his superannuation and was replaced by Parasaran. But Parasaran would not participate in the case. Again, L.N.Sinha was requested by the court to continue as the government attorney. They did not want Jagmohan/his lawyer to take up that role. This confusion too was cleared. But others continued to stay.
Jagmohan was adamant in his stance. He wanted to represent the land administration department of the government. Again, the court reached out to L.N.Sinha for his opinion. He did mention that Jagmohan cannot do that and the whole court was laughing. It highlighted the difference of opinion between the two government lawyers and also between the government & Jagmohan.
Dispute between the Delhi governor & the central government
All the lands in New Delhi belong to the central government. The central government in its owner capacity helped to remove the underground drain and permitted the express group to construct. Jagmohan’s side contested that the central government does not have the powers to decide on that but only the land administration officer. He further claimed that from the days of the British raj, the Lt. Governor of Delhi had the powers to administer the lands in Delhi. To support this argument, more documents were presented. For the first time, it brought a question on the rightful owner of the lands; whether it belonged to the central government or the Lt. Governor. The central government kept quiet, wantonly. Then the responsibility fell on the express group to prove that the government was the rightful owner. To address the fundamental question, I studied the constitution in-depth on how to dismiss the claim of the Lt.governor.
The lesson that I had learnt
The government is made of many departments managed by government officers. For each department, there is a separate minister. Ministry is also there. How the authority is divided among them and what is the position of the constitution on this point? What is the role of the central government & the officers of the government? I came to know about the constitutional provisions (Articles 53 & 77) that empower the government officers to function in the name of the President. But, the basic question was not sorted out and continued to vex us. We had to study the associated bye-laws that were drafted in 1958 that talk about the delegation of powers to the different departments and how the officers were empowered to act on behalf of the President.
From 1950–58, our republic was managed with the help of the laws enacted by the British. Jagmohan’s defense was based on that. Though they were aware of this legal wrangle, Indira’s government was playing the double game. They did not oppose Jagmohan in the court and fact they were waiting for the case to go in favor with the help of this loophole. Yes, it was a loss of face for the government. How does it matter? If the enemy is going to lose both his eyes then they were ready to lose one eye. We smelled the reason behind its silence.
We were left in a peculiar position to defend the government to take back its authority. While studying it deeply, I came to know how the British laws were invalidated by the laws enacted by the government and submitted a lengthy affidavit to the court. I felt very happy when it was deeply appreciated by Nariman. Jagmohan lost his locus standi in the case.
In the judgment, the role of Jagmohan was condemned and his acts were declared illegal. The court ordered to pay the legal expenses to the express group. A review petition was filed in the supreme court and it angered the court, further.
