NEW DELHI: Unaffected by the rebuke from Supreme Court for seeking reference of petitions challenging the validity of the Tribunal Reforms Act to a five-judge bench half-way through the final hearing in the matter, attorney general R Venkataramani made a fresh request for adjournment on Thursday, upsetting CJI B R Gavai, who wondered why the top law officer wasn’t being direct enough to seek adjournment of the hearing beyond Nov 24, when a new CJI assumes office. Venkataramani, who had already been granted two adjournments to enable him to participate in an international arbitration proceeding, through ASG Aishwarya Bhati, requested the bench to adjourn the hearing scheduled for Friday to Monday.
Accommodated request twice, AG not being fair to court: CJI
The CJI, who on Nov 3 had refused to accept the Centre’s application seeking reference of the case to a five-judge bench and termed it as an attempt to drag the matter beyond his retirement date of Nov 23, told Bhati that the AG is “not being fair to the court” despite the bench, also including Justices K Vinod Chandran and Vipul Pancholi, accommodating his request for adjournment twice in the past.“If you want to have the hearing after Nov 24 (when Justice Surya Kant takes over as CJI), you should frankly say that,” the CJI said, adding that “every now and then it is told to us that the AG is busy with international arbitration and yet the Centre comes out with a midnight application seeking reference of the case midway through the final hearing to a five-judge bench.”“We have highest regard for the office of the highest law officer. But when we were practising in HCs, we used to give up cases if we were engaged in a part-heard matter before any bench to enable the HC to complete the hearing as scheduled,” CJI remarked. Though the CJI reluctantly agreed to adjourn the case to Monday, he pointed out that the bench needed enough time to write the judgment. The petitions before SC challenged the provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act which put in place a uniform tenure of four years for the chairperson and members of different tribunals, even though SC had ruled that the tenure should be of five years.On Nov 3, the bench had said, “We did not expect the Union govt to indulge in such tactics. After we have heard the petitioners fully, the Union govt cannot be permitted to take the plea for reference to a larger bench.” However, it clarified that “if on consideration of the arguments, we arrive at a conclusion that the matter involves substantial questions of law requiring reference to a 5-J bench, we will do so”.
