Shri. Mukal Rohotgi, a failed Attorney General?

28.06.2020.

Shri. Mukal Rohotgi, a failed Attorney General?

Shri. Mukal Rohotgi’s lamentations on the NJAC judgement is absolutely lacking in bonafides. In all humility, I must say that I attended the entire hearing of the case spanning over 31 days, a drama enacted by Mr. Fali Nariman and company to protect their fortress. The SCORA was a mere pawn. I was the only person other than the Central and State governments in support of the NJAC questioning the very maintainability of the so called PIL of SCORA. I pleaded that the maintainability of the PIL be decided as a preliminary issue. How the petition could be maintained under article 32 in so far as there is no allegation of violation of any fundamental rights? Without there being a plea of violation of fundamental or legal rights, could anyone seek any remedy in law?

In the genuine PILs, there is a “person aggreived” and it is instituted for the enforcement of his “private rights” for he on account of his poverty or illiteracy is unable to approach the court. And is undoubtedly maintainable. The SCORA’s PIL was different. There was no “person aggreived”, there was no “cause of action” and undoubtedly it was not maintainable at all.

My further contention was that if the SCORA’s PIL was maintainable, since the NJAC is not concerning lawyers in the Supreme court alone, notice to all Bar Associations ought to be issued. Is the institution of judiciary concerning lawyers and judges alone? Obviously not. I,therefore, pleaded that notice to the public at large be issued as in a representative suit. Mr. Mukal Rohotgi did not support me. On the contrary, he was part of the grand alliance to silence me. And they succeeded in as much as the 1034 page judgement does not even have a mention of the objection of non maintainability which I had repeatedly raised.

I sought the recusal of Mr.Justice Dave. Justice Dave,a noble soul, recused himself. Mr.Justice Kehar came in his place. I sought His Lordship’s recusal, so too of the entire bench. And constitution of a new bench where none of the judges would, if the collegium is to be restored by virtue of their judgement, will be members thereof in future. The constitution of a bench of even eleven judges was possible. I gave across the bar the list of 11 judges who would not attract the disqualification of being in conflict of interest.

Apart from what I did above in the public domain, I requested Mr. Rohotgi privately umpteen times to raise the plea of non maintainability of the PIL. I begged with him to assert that precedent does not mean the “numbers” as is the case in res judicata, but the principle if any enunciated. I told him many times that our understanding of the law of the precedent is an absolute stupidity and we must go by the pristine principle of “stare decisis” which means if a court had evolved a new principle where none existed for the resolution of an issue before it, that principle is applicable to future cases as a precedent. I told him that unfortunately Supreme Court has repeatedly failed to notice the distinction between “res judicata” and “stare decisis”. I told him that if the majority of a bench of five judges hold that goat is a dog, that erroneous decision while binding the parties to the ‘lis” as res judicata, it cannot be binding as a precedent in future cases. The entire constitutional law of this country is built on the said misconception and that you must assert that the constitution is supreme and any judgement which is contrary to the constitution is void. However, he did not even show the courtesy to acknowledge the innumerable messages which we had sent to him in the course of the hearing of the NJAC case.

It was legendary Parasaran’s failure to raise the plea of the very non-maintainability of SCORA’s first PIL which was responsible for the great calamity, which the judges- 2 case undoubtedly is. The Presidential reference, namely, judges -3 case is yet another calamity. We lost the NJAC case only because of the incompetence of Mr. Mukal Rohatgi. I have said it many times and would continue to say so, no matter in whatever ways he may continue to harm me. He was a part of the larger conspiracy to liquidate me. I will disclose all that at the appropriate time.