When Attorney General Underlined The Non-Political Nature Of His Office

Attorney General K.K.Venugopal on Friday (10.08.2018) surprised the Supreme Court by expressing concern over widespread acts of vandalism by vigilante groups across the country, and the inaction of the law and order machinery to stem the tide. He left no one in doubt that he was saying so in his capacity as the Attorney General for (rather than of) India, as envisaged under Article 76 of the constitution, which enables him to maintain the independence of his office and advice, although he represents the Centre in most cases before the Supreme Court.His remarks were spontaneous, as the bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud was hearing a public interest litigation filed by the Kodungallur Film Society, Kerala, with a limited prayer for directions to the authorities to take effective measures to prevent the destruction of public and private properties in mass protests and demonstrations, and to fix liability and recover compensation for damages from those whose agitations turned violent.AG’s independent roleOne could imagine that had it been any other AG, he would have simply defended the Centre saying it is the responsibility of state governments to maintain law and order, as it is a state subject. He would also have argued that it is for the state governments to fix responsibility on officials and take action against them, if they chose to be complicit or negligent in their duties to stem violence and act against vandals who take law into their hands.By sharing the petitioner’s concerns on the issue proactively, the AG not only underlined the non-political nature of his office, but enhanced its stature by going beyond the immediate prayer of the petitioner, and suggesting that the court could make the superintendent of police of the district concerned responsible for any inaction against those who threaten or cause violent acts under the garb of vigilantism.While Venugopal’s veiled criticism of the Centre and state governments during the hearing is not comparable to the public criticism of the Centre in matters pertaining to judicial administration and appointment to judicial offices by the first Attorney General, Motilal Setalvad, it cannot be denied that the latter might have inspired the former.Venugopal assumed office as the AG last July after his predecessor, Mukul Rohatgi, abruptly quit office within three years, expressing his inclination to resume his private practice. Since then, his sage advice has helped both the Centre and the court avert difficult moments. When four senior judges of the Supreme Court held a historic press conference on January 12, making public their grievances against CJI Dipak Misra, it was the AG who advised the CJI not to hold an immediate press conference himself to reveal his credentials, as it would only aggravate the crisis rather than restore normalcy in the court’s functioning.When the Centre lost important cases in the Supreme Court, Venugopal was gracious enough to praise the court for its contribution to the jurisprudence, as in the landmark Puttaswamy case which upheld right to privacy as a fundamental right. Recently, when the Centre’s proposal to set up a social media hub led to concerns of surveillance state, and a public interest litigation challenging it in the Supreme Court, Venugopal nipped it in the bud by announcing its withdrawal in the court, so that the case could be disposed of without causing the Centre further embarrassment.Kodungallur Film Society’s petitionThe Kodungallur Film Society filed its present petition in the Supreme Court in the wake of violent agitations against the release of the film Padmavat. Specifically, it sought directions to make persons indulging in acts of destruction of public and private properties in their protest against the release and exhibition of the film liable for the damage caused. It also sought the attachment of assets and properties of the members and leaders of the group, who commit and incite to commit such acts of destruction, till the realisation of the losses caused. Third, it also sought denial of bail applications of arrested persons till they deposit the amount of losses suffered, or on furnishing a security for the amount. “Permitting such outfits to prevent the exhibition of the film through unconstitutional methods will tantamount to giving supremacy to hecklers veto,” the court was told. The petition brought to the notice of the court the recurring trend of fringe groups and outfits taking the law into their own hands to prevent the exhibition of films and oother artistic expressionson the ground that their cultural or religious sentiments are hurt. Films exploring controversial and unconventional themes face obstacles for exhibition, although they are certified for public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, the petition lamented.The petitioner has highlighted the fact that the agitating groups enjoy great political...

When Attorney General Underlined The Non-Political Nature Of His Office

The Wire Analysis

Tags