M.Sreenivasa Murty

How fitting and what was really rebutted ?

I was midway through composing a detailed Note for the PC under the heading: ‘WITH THE LAST POST IN SIGHT, LET US REVISIT OUR CASE AND FINE-TUNE OUR STRATEGIES’, when I came across Mr M V Venugopalan’s latest post purporting to be his ‘fitting rebuttal’ to what I wrote against him earlier. I thought, I will first post a quick and brief response to his so called ‘fitting rebuttal’ and move forward on my more important and perhaps more useful exercise of sharing my thoughts and my plans for the final phase.

Here it is: Mr MVV’s latest post if it is really intended to be a ‘fitting rebuttal’ to whatever I showered on him was totally superfluous if not unwarranted because, in my Post, I conceded happily his right to use his wisdom and come to his own conclusions on who is telling the truth, when two people were telling diametrically opposite things. When his right is respected by me as demanded by him, what remains to be rebutted that too so very fittingly? I would have been benefitted if he really met any of my more serious objections like disputing Mr KML’s claim: “The Court made it clear that the appeals will be heard on the basis of the Jaipur HC judgment and no other Counsel will be heard” while I gave a gentlemanly opportunity to Mr KML to check and come back which he never did and which opportunity (I still prefer to describe it as a challenge, which it was) today received even LIC PC’s editorial recognition). Also Mr MVV chose to conveniently skirt my poser on his own ‘accountability’ when he paints me with the same brush which he used for a large canvas that portrays cynicism all over and fault-finding with those whom he does not like. ... ...

(Since Supreme Court hearing is fast approaching, we are closing this discussion. -Ed.)