Having stated in my last Post to the Chronicle on March 13, 2015 that our cases stand adjourned to 25th March and that everything else is academic if not irrelevant, I wouldn’t have preferred to continue to dwell on the subject. But there are two developments which made me change my mind. 1) My good friend Mr B Ganga Raju, made out a strong case through the Chronicle, for more comprehensive reporting on what is happening inside the Supreme Court and 2) My attention was invited to an ‘explanation’ in an Organization’s official website, on who was behind the adjournment. My last report to the Chronicle was also reproduced under the explanation. The explanation was INCOMPLETE if not wholly incorrect.
I insist this version of mine is accurate, being first-hand and in as much I was physically close to the scene of action. I would also draw from what is on record (of the Chronicle), having been reported by me at that moment. I concede however, certain words uttered by some people who were on their feet were not totally audible. So I don’t want to make any assumptions or surmises on what was not heard by me. In other words, I limit my reporting now to what is indisputable and what was there for everybody to see and note.
When the last matter before ours (Party in Person) was about to end up, it was lunch time and the Court was expected to rise. Interestingly the sure indication that His Lordships will rise for lunch any moment, comes from the fact that two liveried court attenders position themselves inches behind each of the ornate long-backed chairs of the distinguished judges. As soon as their Lordships attempt to half rise, the chairs are dexterously pulled back to facilitate the occupants’ graceful, seamless ‘withdrawal’ from the hallowed Bench to the unseen ante-room/s.
Came the lunch time; I was looking alternatively at my watch and expectantly for the two men, to show up. Minutes passed – no sight of the men and no sign of breaking for lunch. Mr Savla’s Associate whispered to me ‘’I think they suspended the lunch break’’. I asked her ‘’what does it mean?” She said ‘’may be they will hear our matters in brief and adjourn for the day’’. Mr Nidhesh Gupta and his team were present in the Court from 1.00 PM. Mr Abhishek Manu Singhvi was NOT in the Court. LIC’s AoR, Mr Panigrahi was there. So were Mr GNS & Mr R Rajagopalan, standing a couple of feet away. NOW THE REAL THING THAT I NOTICED – Before our case number was called out by the Bench Officer, Mr Nidhesh Gupta stood up and mentioned to the Bench – “……………..as the First Case.” It was evident, as far I am concerned that Mr Gupta was asking for an adjournment, but to what date, I couldn’t hear. Before Mr Gupta could complete whatever he was requesting, Justice Dipak Misra was clearly heard telling “NOT TODAY”. When Mr Gupta continued with his submissions (perhaps the date that he wants) Judge showed towards the Bench Officer (I understood it to mean ‘’leave your request there’’). The Bench then started hearing another case, (perhaps the lone matter in the supplementary list). It was at this point, Mr Abhishek Singhvi briskly walked in. He and Mr Gupta got in to intense (inevitably friendly) consultations, checking their diaries and looking to their juniors for assistance, for the date convenient to both. They were closely surrounded by at least half a dozen or more Juniors and Associates. A little strange that these hush-hush confabulations went on, while the Bench was still at work. What were all the dates considered between them was not known but the choice was finally between 25th and 26th March. Eventually they zeroed in on 25th. They could then get the attention of the Bench to make the request for 25th March which the Bench accepted. It was Justice Misra who remarked “Part-heard’ while Mr Gupta said ‘’yes’’. That’s it. Everybody (about a dozen of them) were jostling to troop out – to hear more from their Counsel concerned, as the Seniors will do the vanishing act and not even pause for a while in the corridor outside the Court Hall.
It is a fact that our case got adjourned because the Court was not ready to hear on that day. According to me, it was not suitable to Mr Nidhesh Gupta also. Also according to me, Mr Abhishek Singhvi, LIC Sr Counsel, was ready to commence his arguments. But obviously the decider was the Court’s convenience. It suited some and the rest had no choice (or voice).
I tried to know what exactly Mr Nidhesh Gupta was saying when he first stood up. I was certain it was to make some submission (may be a request for an adjournment to next Wednesday), as otherwise it was not his (Respondent) turn to stand up at all, when the CAs were about to be called. And LIC’s Sr Counsel was yet to show up. In my quest to know more, I asked Mr Sridharan and Mr Rajagopalan. Both had no clue like I didn’t have any. What is clear is that the matters are posted to 25th March, Mr Nidhesh Gupta & Mr Singhvi were party to the date, the former had also said ‘First Case’’ and Justice Misra remarked “Part-heard’’. Let me now reiterate:
ALL THE REST IS ACADEMIC IF NOT IRRELEVANT.
If I may add my two cents to the story – Senior Counsel command a big clout; All the counsel and the Court are extremely accommodative and friendly with one another. They all gel among themselves so well unmindful of any possible hurt it may cause to their clients/litigants. Ironically, in our case we the common victims do not gel among ourselves. For the Court, the Bar and the System, no case is more important than any other (not to say every case is as unimportant as the other). We live on hope – let us continue to do so and - LET US WAIT FOR JUSTICE TO SMILE ON US.
PS: A very personal observation: A case heard by the Bench on 13th was of a Medical Doctor from Pune – Party in Person. The Petitioner presented herself as a victim of some State harassment. She couldn’t even produce a copy of the Order under challenge. His Lordship displayed rare patience and compassion, gave all the time the harried lady needed to explain her predicament and finally directed an Amicus to assist her to secure the Order copy and posted the matter to next Monday. He took pains to explain the unavoidable court procedures to the small group of women standing before him.
I hope our pensioner colleagues see the significance of this narration.
M. Sreenivasa Murty
Hyderabad