On moral pedestal, Riyaz Jan should speak out

Ahmed Ali Fayyaz

_______

SRINAGAR, Jun 27: Arguing in favour of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) on June 17^th before a Constitutional Bench headed by Justice J.S. Khehar, senior advocate and President of Supreme Court Bar Association Dushyant Dave said: “My Lords should wear a burqa and roam in the court corridors to hear the way lawyers talk about the judges of this court. You will get first-hand account of the rotting justice delivery system. The kind of lawyers who are being appointed as judges is a disgrace”.

Dave added: “Acting chief justice of a high court decides to sit in a single bench, gets the roster for criminal cases, has the case transferred to his bench from another bench and quashes the FIR only because the person involved happens to be a top film star. Which driver gets bail within hours of conviction unless he happens to be a top film star? Which person will get bail by this court on the first day of the bail plea and without a notice to the other side if it is not a big politician? It is a shame”. He was cogently driving home to the Bench that incompetent lawyers in large numbers had been inducted as judges of High Courts and Supreme Court on the recommendation of Collegium and in the process the justice delivery system had turned into a sham.

Exactly five days after Dave’s spine-chilling averments, Jammu and Kashmir’s Advocate General Riyaz Ahmad Jan tendered his resignation to Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s PDP-BJP coalition that had picked him up for the prestigious position as lately as on March 15. It was probably for the first time in the judicial history of the State that an Advocate General stepped down within three months of his appointment which, normally, was supposed to run parallel to the government’s six-year term.

In a conversation with STATE TIMES, Jan revealed that he had developed “serious differences” with the government on “certain crucial issues”. He claimed that the things had come to a head and he was left with just two options: compromise or quit. “I chose to step down”, he asserted.

“Authority, dignity and grace are the three components of the office of Advocate General. And none of these can be compromised”, Jan told another newspaper, Greater Kashmir. He added: “There are many issues on which the AG should be taken into confidence and these cannot be imposed upon every time. There is a limit to patience and when that limit exceeds, you have the only option to quit and not to compromise on your principles.”

J&K’s Bar is genuinely proud to have created conscientious legal practitioners who upheld the dignity and prestige of the high office of Advocate General and did not compromise their self-respect. Jan is indisputably one among them as the Government has not responded to his allegation that it’s ‘interventions’ in the last three months had threatened to undermine the dignity of AG’s office. [Law Secretary Mohammad Ashraf Mir just said that Jan did not come up to the government’s “expectations”]. Neither Jan nor Ashraf elaborated as to what exactly were the government’s “expectations” and what precisely the areas of difference.

Even before democracy came into existence in 1947, J&K’s Bar had celebrated lawyers like Justice Masood Hassan who, after functioning as Vice Chancellor of a University, had been appointed as Advocate General by Maharaja Hari Singh. It didn’t take Hassan a second to resign when he learned that Maharaja had not invited him for a particular official function.

There may be men who did not demit office until reminded by a successor regime that AG’s engagement is essentially a political appointment. There may also be men who tender resignation like Justice (retd.) Ali Mohammad Mir did in 2005 towards the end of his tenure as Chairman of J&K State Human Rights Commission. But Jan’s quitting puts him on a high moral pedestal.

But, contrary to Dave, what makes this eminent lawyer keep things of public interest shrouded in mystery? Is he, like Ministers, legislators and High Court judges, on oath to keep the government’s matters hidden from the public domain? Doesn’t his refusal to speak out keep the government’s “uncalled for interventions” intact for his successor who is picked up from a lesser experienced and younger lot and appointed AG in absence of the Cabinet’s sanction within 20 hours?

Grapevine suggests that Jan declined to act as a “domestic help” of the bureaucracy often develops ego and compatibility issues with the lateral appointments. He had reportedly applied strictness and accountability to his team and would personally appear in a many matters in the court.

Least accustomed to red-tapism, Jan would not shuttle between offices and residences of politicians and bureaucrats for his PR profile. In fact his appointment in March came as a surprise to many as few would expect an anti-establishment lawyer like him to bite the bait from a coalition that had a hardcore right wing group as its key constituent. He accepted the offer when many in his fraternity were expecting another learned lawyer Altaf Haqani’s appointment as AG.

Jan’s half-revelation, in fact, could lead to more confusion as some of the government functionaries have been whispering in certain circles that he attempted to interfere in the government’s matters which did not fall under his constitutional mandate. Under these circumstances, people of the State have every right to know as to what were the issues on which he developed differences with the government and felt his office’s dignity being undermined.

Being tightlipped on the specifics would not serve any purpose. It would only leave his successors vulnerable to more “uncalled for interventions” from the Executive and help his detractors to dismiss his act as brinkmanship. He should speak out like Dave. Even the Advocates Act demands him to be “bold”.

END