Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi responded after AG R Venkataramani justified his Supreme Court absence, saying, “While international arbitration may hold significant financial value, it is fundamentally a commercial issue that pales before a constitutional challenge.”
Attorney General R. Venkataramani of India has clarified that his request to postpone the hearing in the Madras Bar Association case before the Supreme Court was not meant to delay proceedings.
Instead, it was necessary due to his involvement in a significant arbitration case for the Government of India concerning a dispute with Reliance Ltd.
The Attorney General stated,
“I am presently leading the Government’s case in an arbitration proceeding arising out of a Production Sharing Contract (PSC) under which Reliance was required to produce hydrocarbons for the benefit of the Government.”
Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi stated that while international arbitration may hold significant financial value, it is fundamentally a commercial issue that pales in comparison to a constitutional challenge currently before the Supreme Court.
Rohatgi emphasized the constitutional responsibilities of the Attorney General and the necessity for foresight when managing overlapping commitments, acknowledging the Court’s discomfort as “understandable in the circumstances.”
He remarked,
“I personally would never have left a hearing midway to go for an international arbitration. Now, if both are clashing, then one has to take steps in advance so that the clash is removed,”
Rohatgi elaborated,
“Either he should have requested the Court a day earlier that he is stuck somewhere else and the Court may have accommodated him. But ditching a Court hearing midway is not done, whether it’s a constitutional matter or any other matter. And if you ditch it, then you must ensure that somebody else will go on and the Court is not inconvenienced. Or you make arrangements in advance. That’s number one,”
On the possibility of appointing the Solicitor General or an Additional Solicitor General to represent the Union government in the Supreme Court, Rohatgi responded,
“He (AG) could have requested the Court two days earlier to exempt him from Friday and keep it on Monday. But if you can’t do that, then you have a battery of lawyers. You can depute somebody to fill in for you and carry on with the matter. What is the problem? And you could even come back in the matter on Monday.”
Rohatgi noted that the entire situation gave the impression that the government was seeking to delay proceedings.
He remarked,
“But the government was desperately trying for adjournments in some measure or other, including filing an application at the last moment midway during hearing to desperately try and defer it to a bench of five judges so that the hearing gets delayed. So that’s the background of this case and that is what irked the Court,”
He added that while requesting a larger bench mid-hearing is acceptable, the way it was executed in this instance suggested it was a tactic to delay.
He added,
“You can ask for it. It’s not as if you can never ask for it. But the way it was done in this case showed it was really a desperate delay tactic.”
Rohatgi also expressed that the Court was right to proceed with the hearing and that there was no need to appoint an amicus curiae.
He concluded,
“You don’t need an amicus when the Government of India has a battery of lawyers. So the Court made it very clear to Aishwarya Bhati, the Additional Solicitor General, that she should carry on. What the Court did was correct. There’s no question of an amicus here,”
He noted that even if arbitration took precedence, the AG should have alerted the Court in advance or made contingency plans.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s clarification came a day after Chief Justice of India BR Gavai expressed his displeasure when a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the Attorney General in the Madras Bar Association case.
The CJI observed that it seemed like an attempt to delay the hearing until after his retirement later this month.
Previously, , In a hearing before the Supreme Court , Chief Justice of India (CJI) expressed strong displeasure after Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani sought yet another adjournment in the Madras Bar Association case.
The request for adjournment was conveyed to the Bench by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi questioned Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani for requesting an adjournment only a few days before CJI Gavai’s retirement from the Supreme Court.
The CJI, visibly dissatisfied, remarked,
“We’ve already accommodated you twice. How many more times? If you want the matter taken up after November 24, say so since I demit office then. This is very unfair to the Court. Every time, you seek adjournments citing international arbitration.”
Responding to the observation, ASG Aishwarya Bhati informed the Bench,
“The learned AG is on his legs, My Lords.”
However, the Chief Justice did not conceal his concern about repeated delays in such an important matter.
He remarked,
“Then he should have been present here. We hold the highest respect for the office of the Attorney General, the country’s top constitutional lawyer, but if hearings are disrupted in this manner…..”
The Supreme Court’s comments underline growing frustration over repeated adjournments in high-profile constitutional matters.
The Madras Bar Association case, which has been pending for some time, relates to issues surrounding tribunals and appointments, and the Court has been urging an early hearing and resolution.
The Madras Bar Association (MBA) case is one of the most significant and long-running legal battles in India concerning tribunals and the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
Earlier, The Supreme Court received a plea from the Madras Bar Association and others, alleging that Sections 3(1), 3(7), 5, and 7(1) of the Tribunal Reform Act, 2021 violate Articles 14, 21, and 50 of the Constitution of India.
In response, the Central Government asserted that the Act does not infringe upon fundamental rights or any constitutional provisions, emphasizing its authority to enact such legislation. The government’s reply indicated that the Act is a culmination of numerous Supreme Court decisions and various statutes and rules on the same issue, which is unprecedented in the Supreme Court’s history.
The Central Government stated,
“It has been held in a series of cases including by two Constitutional Bench decisions and by a 7 judges bench of this Hon’ble Court that basic structure in the Constitution can only be used to test the validity of a Constitutional amendment but has no relevance when it comes to validity of a statue.”
The Act disbanded several existing appellate bodies and transferred their functions to other judicial entities. It also established a four-year term for the Chairperson and members of the Tribunal, with an upper age limit of 70 years for the Chairperson and 67 years for other members.
Additionally, it dissolved tribunals created under various acts, including the Cinematograph Act of 1952, the Trade Marks Act of 1999, the Copyright Act of 1957, the Customs Act of 1962, the Patents Act of 1970, and the Airports Authority of India Act of 1994, with pending cases being redirected to commercial or civil courts or high courts.
The Central Government described the abolished appellate tribunals as an “unwanted additional layer of judicial intervention.”
A lack of human resources, particularly an insufficient number of judges, has been identified as a significant factor contributing to the backlog of cases in courts.
The government initiated the rationalization of tribunals in 2015, leading to the abolition or merger of seven tribunals through the Finance Act of 2017, reducing their total from 26 to 19 based on functional similarities.
Case Title: MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
