"Unfair": Supreme Court to ASG during remission hearing

The Supreme Court of India recently took exception to Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave raising a technical objection to the grant of remission to a convict. .A Bench of Justice AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was particularly unimpressed by the fact that the ASG raised the objection half an hour into the hearing which the Court taken up on priority basis on the afternoon of April 22.The Court had discharged other listed cases that afternoon to hear this remission case. "What is this? Because of this matter, we asked other litigants to go because we are hearing it (this case). And now you are raising a technical point which you ought to have raised at the beginning. People are in queue and you are wasting court's time. This is not done. I will record all this in order," Justice Oka said during the hearing.The Bench further pointed out that the preliminary objection raised by the ASG was related to an issue that had already been flagged by the Court in two earlier orders. "Raising such a preliminary objection after arguing the case for half an hour especially in the light of the two orders which we have quoted above is unfair to the other litigants whose cases were listed before this Court today," the Court recorded in its order. .Justice Oka also orally remarked that such contentions are raised merely to delay the proceedings, which is unfair to other litigants."Everyday we are experiencing this. Why such contentions are being raised (when) we know that there is a time limit. Therefore, all contentions are raised so that matter is postponed. It is not only unfair to us; it is unfair to so many litigants," he said.ASG Dave apologised and also offered to continue making other arguments. "We are so sorry milords ... It is my mistake, I take it up on me...I take it completely as my mistake. I give away with that objection, I can continue with the arguments. I will answer why I pointed that out," she said. "Frankly speaking we are trying to take as many matters as possible. We feel very bad ... People were waiting here. At 3:15 we told them to go away ... If ultimately members of the bar feel that we should not work more, I am not prepared to exercise that option. Whatever may be the criticism, I am ready to accept it," Justice Oka added. .The Court eventually adjourned the matter till May and asked the petitioner (convict seeking remission) to amend his plea to address the objection raised by ASG Pathak."Since this strong objection has been raised, we permit the petitioner to amend the Petition for raising the contention noted in the earlier orders, though this amendment is strictly not required in view of our earlier orders," the Court said..The case was being heard on April 22 to examine the question of whether the petitioner-convict could be released from prison on account of his having completed twenty years of his life imprisonment sentence.This aspect had been flagged by the Court in two orders - one in February and one in March - and was also tied to the interpretation of the life imprisonment sentence awarded to the petitioner by a High Court. "Above two orders gave a clear notice to all the learned counsel appearing for the parties that this Court was to consider the interpretation of the operative part of the judgment of the High Court," the Court pointed out. However, during the April 22 hearing, ASG Pathak raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had not raised this ground in his petition (of being entitled to release after serving 20 years of jail time). The Court too, therefore, could not delve into this question, the ASG contended. The Court took exception to this turn of events."While the learned ASG was arguing, we thought that the Advocates waiting for other cases should not be made to wait as remaining part of the day’s time was likely to be consumed in this case. Therefore, at 3:15 p.m., we discharged the rest of the cases on the cause list and informed the members of the Bar that those cases will not be taken up. Fifteen minutes thereafter, this preliminary objection was raised by the learned ASG. Therefore, raising such a preliminary objection after arguing the case for half an hour especially in the light of the two orders which we have quoted above, is unfair to the other litigants whose cases were listed before this Court today," the Court explained..The matter will be heard next on May 7. .[Read order]