I am different from my views

Topic started by vohsendhan (@ 202.88.133.66) on Sat Mar 16 04:08:25 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.






Judge: Mr. Sendhan, all this blah…blah has been told by you!

I: Yes, my lord!

Judge: These are, therefore, your views.

I: No, my lord!

Judge: But, you did not say whose views they were.

I: Yes, my lord!

Judge: They must, therefore, be your views only.

I: No, my lord!

Judge: You did not appear in any other capacity before this court when you articulated all that blah…blah…. Right?

I: Yes, my lord!

Judge: What you said cannot, then, be the views of anyone else but you.

I: No, my lord!

Judge: What do you say?Can you be different from your views?

I. Yes, my lord!

Judge: (Tearing his hairs on either side of his head with both his hands) Eeeeeeeeeeee! What happened to you? How can you say you are different from your views?

I: That is correct, my lord, you have framed two issues.

Judge: Me, pray, when?

I: Just now. The issues, as framed by you, are: (1) What happened to me and (2) How I can be different from my views.
Judge: (Reflects for a moment and becomes cool.) OK! You please answer those questions. I would be grateful to you.

I: In regard to the first issue, my lord, my reply is in the negative. I declare that nothing happened to me. In regard to the second issue, I say that a precedent has recently been set in the premises of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on Wednesday, the 13th March 2002. Hasn't my lord read the newspapers concerned?

Judge: Fortunately, I never read newspapers. You can say what you came to say.

I: Mr. Soli Sorabjee, Attorney General, had pleaded "for permission from the court to hold a symbolic puja in the acquired land at Ayodhya." (Asian Age 14.3.2002).

Judge: So what? The government might have asked him to say so. After all, he is the Attorney General. He must inform the Court of the stand of the government in this case. As per the Constitution he is "to perform such other duties of a legal character as may be assigned by the President". So he might have informed the court in that capacity.

I: But, my lord, he himself has said that the government had not given him any brief to say anything in the court in this issue.

The vital questions

Judge: You must develop the habit of reading the newspapers correctly. What you say might not have been correct. An Attorney General is heard by the Court only because he and his views represent the Government of India. "The Constitution expressly guarantees his right of audience in all courts in India in the performance of his duties".(The Constitution of India - MV. Pylee - Vikas Publishing House). He is there before the Court only because he is on duty. Not in his personal capacity. He must represent the government's views and not his views. Do you mean the government did not want to appear before the Supreme Court and explain its case on this issue on that day? Was the Supreme Court informed by the Attorney General that it was Mr. Soli Sorabjee and not Attorney General who was standing and explaining his views on that day? Was the Court aware of the fact that the government had not authorized him to appear before the court in this case? It cannot be. The Court cannot be publicly misled in the manner. I do not think the Attorney General would have done so.

I: But, my lord, Mr. Sorabjee had said in public before the journalists and also before the leaders of the NDA that the government had not given him any brief and no one gave him any instructions.

Judge: Check up once again, Attorney General is always and adviser to the government on legal matters and their spokesman in the Court. But, he is not running the government. He cannot usurp the functions of the President, Prime Minister, Home Minister and others who have been vested with the responsibility of running the affairs of the nation.

The parade

I: But, my lord, when the allies of the BJP in the NDA got agitated over the fact that the government had betrayed them by using the Attorney General to support the cause of the VHP, the PMO immediately denied responsibility for the statement given by the Attorney General before the Supreme Court. "Mr. Sorabjee was paraded before the agitated allies in the PM's chamber where the attorney-general said the government had not given him any brief, that his response was based on his understanding of the legal position and the details of the ceremony were 'off-the-cuff' suggestions". (Times of India 14.3.2002). He also "told journalists on Wednesday that the view he expressed as A-G before the Supreme Court represented the Government of India, 'but no one gave me instructions'." (TOI 14.3.2002).

Judge: Please check up the newspapers of the subsequent days. He might have said that he had been misquoted or misrepresented by the media.

I: I checked up my lord. There is no denial even in to-days newspapers.That is why I am late in appearing before you to cite this precedent.

Judge: Yet, I am not able to believe that an Attorney General would have stoopped to the extent of misrepresenting himself before the Hon'ble Apex Court of our nation and misleading the Court to believe that his views were that of the government.

I: On the other hand, my lord, I saw Mr. Sorabjee appearing in the TV news and saying the same thing. There was also a scroll news also on the TV on his statement. Doesn't my lord see TV?

Judge: Of course, I see. But only the advertisements.


A partisan ascertainment

I:My lord, "Mr. Sorabjee said this (the prayer ceremony) would be conducted by 70 sants and not karsevaks"(Asian Age 14.3.2002). If the government had not given him any brief, who informed him about the persons who would conduct the prayer ceremony? What is the difference between a sant and a karsevak? Cannot a sant be a karsevak?What was the difference between the violation by sant and the violation by a karsevak?

Judge: Yes, that is a vital question. Who informed Mr. Sorabjee about the number of persons who would perform the ceremony?

I: When the journalists "asked how his suggestions were identical to those of VHP counsel Rama Jois, he said, "I did not consult him. I ascertained from him the facts and told him that this was what I was going to say"

Judge: What do you say? I am shocked. An Attorney General "ascertained" from VHP counsel "the facts" but didn't think it necessary to "ascertain" "the facts" from the counsel of the other parties opposing the VHP? An Attorney General "ascertained" from VHP counsel "the facts" but did not think it necessary to "ascertain" from his own master, the Government of India, any "facts"?! An Attorney General "told" the VHP counsel what he was "going to say" in the Court later during the hearing, but did not think it necessary to inform the President, Prime Minister or the Home Minister of what he was going to say. I do not understand.

Who's the decision maker


I: But, the Times of India in its publication dated 14.3.2002 on page 7 that "Earlier, in an informal exchange with newspersons, "The A-G's view is that of the government".

Judge: What does it mean, really? Who took the decision first? The Government or the AG? The AG is meant only for conveying the opinion of the government before the Court and also to advise the government on legal matters. But, it seems here that the decision to run the government is left to the AG? If the decision had been taken by the government and informed to the AG, why should the AG say that his views were just as per his understanding of the situation? Why should he deny he was simply and rightly the mouthpiece of the Government?

The sinister contradictions

I: Let me sum up, my lord! Mr. Sorabjee did not appear in his personal capacity before the Court. He appeared and could appear only because he was AG. The Supreme Court heard him only because he was AG. The AG also does not say what he said was his personal opinion. He has gone on record having said that his views represented the government. But, he was paraded before the NDA allies to declare that no one in the government briefed him. He also took pains to "ascertain" the views of VHP only of "the facts" and not that of the government or the other parties.All these contradictions emanated from sinister motives.


Moreover, the government says that it did not brief him. It implies that the government had not found it necessary to appear before the court in this case. But the AG had made appearance. Why? What prompted him to do so? Besides,Mr. Vajpayee has not taken action against Mr. Sorabjee.What does it show?
They Vs. Their views

It all boils down to the following:
(1). Government had intended to give the impression to the Supreme Court that its views are placed before the Court for its consideration. But, it has told the public that it was not responsible for its views placed before the Supreme Court through its AG. It is thus clear that the government can be different from the government's views.
(2). An AG has to act only as directed by the government. The AG had done it as such and made the Supreme Court to believe that he was acting as AG. But, he wants us to believe that he did not act as per government's advice. He implies that the AG can say what is not AG's opinion. So, it becomes clear that the AG can be different from the AG's views.

Judge:(Holding his head) My head is reeling.

I: That is why, my lord, I too have the right to say that I can be different from my views.

The Judge gets up to move.

I: My lord, the court has not been adjourned yet.

Judge: I am going to see TV ads. The lies uttered by the businessmen in business are less shameful and less dangerous than those of the businessmen in politics and bar.

Responses:

  Tell your friend about this topic

Want to post a response?

Post a response:

Name:

E-mail:


Please Reload to see your response

Back to the Forum