ASSEMBLY POLL '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS '98
ARCHIVES

Sorabjee questions locus standi of petitioner in PIL against Bhagwat's dismissal

Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee today tried to pull out the central government from the legal web in Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat's sacking case by questioning before the Delhi high court the locus standi of the petitioner in challenging the dismissal of the naval chief and maintainability of his public interest petition.

Sorabjee went on an offensive as soon as the matter came up for hearing before a division bench of the court by submitting that though the records in the case have been brought for its perusal, it would be better that the question of the maintainability of the petition and the locus standi of the petitioner in filing it was settled first.

The bench, comprising Justices Y K Sabharwal and K S Gupta had, on January 12, directed the government to place the records related to the case before it as it felt that ''the entire nation had been watching the developments for the last few days and it is better for the government that the nation should be told as much as it can be told about it (the sudden dismissal of the naval chief).''

The court had left the question of issuing showcause notices to the government subject to the contents of the records.

Sorabjee contended, ''There is no question of hiding anything, but the locus standi of the petitioner should be proved before the court perused the documents.''

The petition was not maintainable in view of the averments made in it, he said and cited two Supreme Court judgments which restrained a third party from approaching the court to challenge certain decisions related to people holding high offices.

Agreeing with the submissions of Sorabjee, the bench directed petitioner Wg Cdr H M Sethi (retd) to satisfy the court about his locus standi in approaching the court and maintainability of the petitioner as the matter was of great importance.

Submitting written submissions supporting the government's stand on the issue, the attorney general also attracted the court's attention on the decision of the Bombay high court in dismissing a similar PIL merely because the petitioner failed to satisfy the court on the question of his locus standi. The bench directed Sorabjee to place a copy of the Bombay high court order on the next date of hearing on January 28.

The judges also asked Cdr Sethi to address the court on the queries raised by them and the views expressed by Sorabjee regarding the apex court order. ''We are thinking that you address us for our prima facie forming an opinion about the maintainability of the petition and your locus standi,'' they observed.

''Some kind of hearing would be required to decide the matter,'' the judges opined, but directed the government to bring the records to the court on the next date of hearing as well.

On the submission of Cdr Sethi for perusing the records as they were available in the court, the bench said, ''You may have a fairly good case, but we will have to refresh ourselves on the contents of the two Supreme Court judgments referred to by Sorabjee.''

Sorabjee stated that the petition was liable to be dismissed in view of the settled legal position that when the person aggrieved consciously and deliberately chooses not to question the decision or action affecting him, it was not permissible for any third party to file a writ petition challenging that decision or action.

In the present case, ex-navy chief Admiral Bhagwat has publicly declared that he does not wish to challenge the decision in the court of law. ''His choice must be respected,'' the written submission filed in the court contended.

It said another party cannot be permitted to thrust or foist a relief which the affected party has not claimed nor desired and to wage a proxy forensic battle which the former navy chief wished to eschew.

''In any event it is well sufficiency of the grounds for withdrawal of pleasure by the President in respect of a member of the defence service would be outside the scope of the court's enquiry. The decision (to dismiss Admiral Bhagwat) would thus be unassailable if Admiral Bhagwat were himself to challenge,'' the government said.

''The public interest petition cannot seek to obtain a relief to which Admiral Bhagwat himself would not have been entitled if he had chosen to approach the court,'' it opined.

Cdr H M Sethi, an ex-serviceman, has sought a high-level probe into the circumstances leading to the sacking of the admiral and a court's direction to the government for divulging the reasons, grounds and charges for the action. He also wanted that Admiral Bhagwat should be reinstated to the post if exonerated by the inquiry committee.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report