HC takes exception to absence of AG in Justice Adi's case

The High Court on Wednesday passed an order stating that it would have no option but to proceed ex-parte against the State government in the petition filed by Upalokayukta Justice Adi, if no one represented the government before the Court.

Justice Raghavendra S Chauhan made the order since Advocate General Madhusudhan Naik was not present before the court during the hearing.

When the case came up for hearing, the government counsel informed the court that the AG was in Chennai to appear before the National Green Tribunal in connection with a case. However, the court took serious note of his absence.

Adjourning the matter to February 5, the bench said in its order: “If the AG has difficulty in appearing before the court, he shall either make alternative arrangement for the case to be argued on behalf of the government, or in case no one appears on behalf of the government, then this court will have no other option, but to proceed ex-parte against the government. Under no circumstance, a request for adjournment would be entertained by this court.”

The order further said that on the last occasion, the AG had submitted to the court that the case was rather urgent and therefore had to be heard and decided by this court on the same day.  But, despite the urgency pleaded by him on the last occasion, the court was informed that AG was unavailable. “This is certainly a surprising state of affairs that despite urgency pleaded by the AG, he has decided to appear before Madras High Court instead of arguing the case before this court.”

The order said that in case the AG wanted an adjournment, it was his duty to inform the bench that the case should be adjourned for the day. After all, the judges do come prepared to the court after having read the file. The omission on his part certainly forces the judge to read the file only to be told in the morning that the case ought to be adjourned. This court does not appreciate such silence on the part of the AG who is supposed to be the role model for the rest of the Bar.

Justice Adi has moved the court challenging the legality of the motion adopted by the Assembly “before verifying valid reasons and sufficient grounds” for his ouster. The matter was adjourned previously as the documents related to the petition were not translated.