Kapil Sibal is one of India’s more famous lawyers. His arguments in the
Supreme Court carry heavy weight both with the judges on the high chair
as well as lawyers on the other side of the aisle. Sibal knows the law
as good as anyone. He has won many famous court battles, as much for
rich corporates as for poor, defenceless individuals.
As a long-time member of the Congress Party he has been a minister in
the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh. Unfortunately, the two hats confuse him at times and
Sibal the politician overshadows Sibal the lawyer and the result is
somewhat bizarre and even comical.
Take for instance the “zero loss’ statement by Sibal that shocked and
surprised the whole nation even as he and the Congress Party became the
butt of ridicule. After taking over as minister for Communication and
Information Technology in January 2011, Sibal called a press conference
to contradict a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General that said
the 2G spectrum scam under his predecessor Andimuthu Raja’s watch had
cost the country a Rs1.75tn loss.
He thought he could bring out the lawyer in him and argue the
government’s case to convince the press. He did some quick, loud
thinking, waved a few papers and declared the loss to the exchequer was
“zero”! Neither the press nor the average Indian was impressed. Sibal
has never been able to live down that statement.
Now Sibal has come up with another twisted logic that even his party is
finding difficult to subscribe to. He wants India to wait longer for a
solution to the vexing dispute between Hindus and Muslims over the land
on which stood the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.
Last week the Supreme Court began hearing the long-delayed and much
contested case. Much blood had been spilt ever since Hindu hordes
demolished the 16th mosque built on the orders of Mughal Emperor Babur.
After lengthy arguments, the Allahabad High Court ordered that the 2.77
acre plot of land be split three ways and two parts be given to Hindus
and one part to Muslims. But this was not acceptable to either side.
Both wanted all of it. They appealed against the high court verdict and
the Supreme Court stayed the lower court order.
That was in 2011. The matter had been lying dormant all this while. With
the passage time the intensity of the litigants has also waned with
sections of peace-loving Muslims advocating a compromise and asking
their community to give up the claim as a grand gesture and in the
interest of social harmony. Five years on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
leader Subramanian Swamy approached the Supreme Court in February 2016
with an appeal that the issue be heard without further delay.
It did not make any headway. But when Swamy again approached the court
in July this year, then-chief justice J S Khehar finally agreed to hear
the matter on a day-to-day basis. Justice Khehar retired in August but
his successor Dipak Mishra had already begun preparing to hear the case.
So when it finally came up, Sibal stood up to plead that the hearing be
postponed until June 2019. His argument: the BJP government at the
Centre would take advantage of the case, and possibly its verdict, if it
was decided before the May 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Of course there is politics involved in the Babri Masjid case. But the
same holds good for a large number of major cases in Indian courts. Does
that mean these cases should not be heard or decided upon because the
outcome may be cited for election campaign purposes? With 29 states and
seven federally-administered territories, India is almost always on
election mode. So a case in court – there is almost always a politically
potent case in court – can have an impact on any of these states or
even the federal government. But should that stop the case altogether?
The 2G spectrum case verdict is set to be given by the special CBI court
on December 21. The by-election to the R K Nagar assembly seat in Tamil
Nadu is also set for the same day. If Raja or Kanimozhi, who both
belong to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), are found guilty, the
party may face an electoral backlash that very same day. So, can the
judge be asked defer his judgment?
There are two other factors that seemed to have slipped Sibal’s sharp
mind when he made his outrageous demand. When he said the hearing – and
possibly the verdict – before June 2019 could help the BJP, it was
obvious he felt the case will slip from him and will go in favour of the
Hindus who the BJP identifies itself more with than any other religious
group.
It is natural to expect of the BJP to take advantage of a favourable
verdict, if and when it comes. But for the lawyer opposing the
possibility of such a verdict to pre-empt it can only be termed as a
less-than-intelligent move. His client must be wondering whose side the
lawyer is on!
Sibal’s argument also, in a sense, questions the impartiality of the
honourable judges themselves. Is it Sibal’s case that the judges should
be aware of the political ramifications of a case before arriving at a
verdict? Should they be influenced by anything – anything at all – other
than pure legal perspective of a case?
Yes, lately there have been several charges of judicial activism and
overreach even by the highest court and these have caused much
consternation among Indians. But that in no way can be construed as the
guiding principle of Indian judiciary. In fact, the bench, headed by
Chief Justice Mishra told Sibal: “You can argue whatever you want, we
will decide after hearing all parties. Let the hearing begin. You are
making non-serious arguments.”
All these and more must have forced the Congress Party itself to disown
whatever Sibal was saying. Senior Congress leader Jyotiraidtya Scindia
told reporters that whatever Sibal said in court was his position as a
lawyer and the party had nothing to do with it.
Sibal found himself further alienated when Haji Meboob of the Sunni Waqf
Board, the chief litigant for Muslims, said: “Yes, Kapil Sibal is our
lawyer but he is also related to a political party. His statement in the
Supreme Court yesterday was wrong... we want a solution to the issue at
the earliest.”
The issue got great play in the press when Prime Minister Modi jumped
into the fray and praised the Waqf Board for its stand. Speaking at an
election rally in Gujarat, Modi said: “Everyone wants a time-bound
solution except Congress and their leaders. The Sunni Waqf Board must be
congratulated for their brave stand on the matter and disassociating
themselves from the statement of Kapil Sibal ji.”
Sibal tried to wriggle out of the situation by denying he was
representing the Waqf Board, but by then the damage was done. It did not
make any impact on the general impression that the senior lawyer had
overstepped far too much and made himself the butt of ridicule among his
peers as well as Indians at large. Obviously this was another “zero
loss” moment for Kapil Sibal. Problem is, you can add any number of
zeroes to a zero and the result is the same!
