After sharp exchange,Venugopal wants out of 2G cases

This happened towards the end of a somewhat aggressive hearing,which pushed the limits of what lawyers often describe as friendly banter in court — and during which Additional Solicitor General Harin Rawal argued separately for the ED for some time while Venugopal,the senior counsel,looked on.

The hearing began with the government asking for another week’s time to inform the court of its decision on the appointment of the prosecutor,thus extending the impasse over U U Lalit. The trial is scheduled to commence in less than a week — on April 13.

In the previous session on April 5,the government had submitted that Lalit did not qualify to be Special Public Prosecutor because he did not have the seven years’ experience of working “under” the government as required under Sec. 46 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002.

But today,Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising read out from a one-page note that it was “neither appropriate nor necessary” to consider the scope of Section 46 (2) “at this stage”.

Asked by the court for his opinion,Venugopal said that since the government was not “pressing” its earlier argument,there seemed to be no impediment in the path of Lalit’s appointment.

At this point,Jaising intervened hotly,saying,“I do not wish to be misrepresented. That is why I put it in writing. Nowhere is it mentioned that I am ‘pressing or not pressing’ under Section 46 (2). I do not wish my arguments to be recycled or regurgitated this way.”

She then made an indirect reference to Venugopal’s chuckle: “Laughter is at times an act of sarcasm.”

Venugopal then explained to the court that he had initially wanted the CBI to make its own choice of prosecutor,and that he had gone ahead to scout for one only after being asked to do so by the court.

“Now it is left for the court to decide the appropriate person,” he concluded.

The court told Jaising,“We intend to pass an order to appoint Mr Lalit as Special Public Prosecutor and he will have the choice to select his team of prosecutors.”

Jaising responded combatively: “Then if Your Lordships pass this order,we will have to consider our position and will have to take appropriate steps. I do not want to be seen consenting to any order here.”

Rawal,who is assisting Venugopal in the ED brief,then stood up to read out case laws to show that courts cannot intervene in the appointment of prosecutors,even as the Bench said their order would only follow the “prerogatives of law”.

Shortly afterward,Venugopal asked to be relieved of his brief.

“I wish to be discharged from the ED case since there is now another representation,” he said,pointing to Rawal in the next seat. “In the CBI case also I want to be discharged after the filing of the second chargesheet.”

Rawal responded that he had addressed the court only because he had been “instructed” to do so,and did not want to be “guilty” of not complying.

“Then they could have told me. I,being the senior counsel,” replied Venguopal.

The court scheduled the case for April 11 to pronounce orders. It indicated that its order would lay down the conditions of the trial,including that it would be done on a day-to-day basis,suffer no adjournments and brook no orders from any other courts which may impede the proceedings.