The Hindu Business Line : Legal fraternity divided over Mr Justice Raveendran’s move

New Delhi, Nov. 4 The decision of Supreme Court judge Mr Justice R.V. Raveendran to withdraw from hearing the Ambani brothers’ gas row on moral grounds on Wednesday sparked off a similar development.

Yet another apex court judge, Mr Justice Markandey Katju, withdrew from a case involving the Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries Ltd and BPCL saying his wife held shares of RIL.

The court had reserved its judgment in the matter on September 1, 2009 after hearing the arguments of both sides. The dispute between the two companies was over price differences based on quality in naphtha supplied by BPCL to RIL plant in Raigad. The matter would now have to be heard by the court all over again, sources said.

Meanwhile, the legal fraternity appears to be divided on whether Mr Justice Raveendran’s decision would call for any changes in the principles on which judges should recuse themselves from hearing matters.

Mr Justice Raveendran had said, “I know my conscience is clear. However, ‘justice must not only be done, but also seen to be done.’ The important thing is the ‘seen’ part (of the guiding principle). Therefore, to maintain the high traditions of this court, I would like to recuse myself (from the Ambani brothers’ gas row).”

Mr Justice Raveendran said he learnt only on Tuesday evening that the law firm, where his daughter is working, is advising the Mukesh Ambani group on other matters like global acquisitions.

Former Attorney General Mr Soli Sorabjee termed the connection as “too remote” for Mr Justice Raveendran to withdraw from hearing the matter.

“His (Mr Justice Raveendran’s) daughter was working for a firm that has nothing to do with the case before him. By recusing himself, he has taken a moral ground that is too high. However, ultimately it is his personal decision,” Mr Sorabjee told Business Line. The law firm that Mr Justice Raveendran’s daughter is working for (AZB & Partners) is run by Mr Sorabjee’s daughter, Ms Zia Mody. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Mr Prashant Bhushan welcomed Mr Justice Raveendran’s move saying, “he should have done this earlier itself when he disclosed that he was holding equal number of shares in RIL and RNRL. He should not have asked for the opinion of the parties involved on whether he should hear the matter or not.”

Mr Bhushan pointed out that according to the internationally acknowledged norm as specified in the ‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’, judges should recuse themselves on their own from hearing a case in which they or their family has any economic interest.

However, in India, judges only need to disclose their interests and offer to recuse themselves, he said. “It is time that judges in India also follow the global norms,” the senior lawyer added.

However, Mr Sorabjee said it is enough if the judges reveal their financial interests and offer to recuse themselves.

Mr Justice Raveendran had offered to recuse himself on the very first day of the final hearing in the matter on October 20 by revealing that he holds equal number of shares in RIL and the Anil Ambani-promoted Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (RNRL).

But RIL senior counsel Mr Harish Salve, RNRL senior counsel Mr Ram Jethmalani and Additional Solicitor General Mr Mohan Parasaran (representing the Government), said they had no objections on Mr Justice Raveendran hearing the matter.

When Supreme Court judges had disclosed their assets on Monday, Mr Justice Raveendran’s assets showed that he holds 19,773 shares in 57 companies. These include 772 shares in RIL, 783 shares each in RNRL and Reliance Communication Ventures, Reliance Energy Ltd (840 shares) and Reliance Capital Ltd (821).

The Apex Court Web site also showed that his wife holds 10,616 shares in 43 companies, including 314 each in RIL, RNRL and Reliance Communication Ventures Ltd, Reliance capital (15 shares) and Reliance Energy Ltd (22 shares).