New DelhiThe role of former and present judges in setting up the Hyderabad-based International Arbitration and Arbitration Center (IAMC) has become the subject of a public war of words that has been going on since last month between three senior members of the bar. ,
A back-and-forth tussle started at the arbitration center a 13 June Op-Ed In Wire Written by Sriram Panchu, a prominent arbitrator and senior advocate of the Madras High Court. Strongly worded, Panchu argued that “India’s arbitration process” faced the threat of being “captured by retired judges”.
Further, he suggested that the IAMC, which was inaugurated last December by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Telangana Chief Minister, K. Chandrashekhar Rao, reflects the tendency of judges to “use judicial office to benefit former colleagues, or themselves through post-retirement benefits”.
Pointing out that Justice Ramana was the author of the deed of the Public Charitable Trust and Justice Hima Kohli and recently retired L Nageswara Rao were the trustees, he alleged that the trust had “categorically sought land and leniency from the State Government of Telangana”. . ., who is bound by pleasure”.
Refuting Panchu’s arguments, retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge K. Kannan, who argued in live law While government bodies were prone to “corruption and nepotism”, judges could establish “institutions of eternal glory”. Senior Supreme Court advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also questioned In Panchu’s “Unfounded Fear” live law, Wire Also played versions of these pieces.
Both Kannan and Sankaranarayanan rubbished Panchu’s argument that the IAMC granted “post-retirement sins” to former Supreme Court judges. Both insisted that it was a public trust set up in 2017 with infrastructural support without the latter interfering in the functioning of the Telangana government body.
Panchu reiterated his allegations about the judges’ “misdeeds” and “misuse of office to divert work to its centre”. Another Op-Ed In Wire this Sunday.
ThePrint reached out to Panchu and Sankaranarayanan, but both declined to comment on the debate.
Read also: SC judge says half-truths using social media to probe judicial process
What is IAMC?
The International Arbitration and Arbitration Center was inaugurated in December last year by Chief Justice NV Ramana at Nanakramguda on the outskirts of Hyderabad in the presence of Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao.
Speaking at the opening ceremony, CJI Ramana said that IAMC will emerge as one of the top sites for arbitration and arbitration. He too Thank you Chief Minister to provide “world class” infrastructure for the Mediation Centre.
In January this year, the CJI had laid the foundation stone for the construction of the new building of the center in Rayadurg. Apart from earmarking land for State IAMC has also increased 50 crore financial assistance for its construction.
According to the trust deed, there are two life trustees – former Supreme Court judges RV Raveendran and LN Rao – and two ex-officio trustees – Chief Justice of Telangana High Court (currently Satish Chandra Sharma) and state law minister (currently) A Indrakaran. Reddy). There are also three three-year term trustees, one of whom is Supreme Court Judge Hima Kohli.
CJI Ramana is said to be the author of this trust deed and Justice Rao was a serving SC judge when the center was inaugurated. On Rao’s retirement in June this year, CJI Ramana announced that the former judge would be absorbed as a life trustee of the IAMC.
‘Monopoly is under construction’
Panchu K first article, Titled ‘Thanks to our judges, darkness now clouds India’s mediation playing field’, a debate erupted around the IAMC.
In this article published on June 13, Panchu argued that an arbitrator is the “polar opposite” of a judge. ,[T]The latter issues orders while the former facilitates, always leaving the final decision to the parties,” he wrote.
Although he said he would “welcome” retired judges into a “new emerging profession”, he felt they should “earn his enthusiasm”.
According to him, the IAMC was a “deeply disturbing” development, not least because the CJI and Justices Rao and Kohli could not set up an “arbitration initiative offering resolution of commercial disputes for a fee” in an official representative capacity. could. ,
Panchu further alleged that the “directions” to refer to the judges of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), “which handle commercial and corporate disputes of high value”, and “the first court on Tilak Marg” (Supreme Court) Had gone. Cases of this newly established center.
This, he claimed, amounted to building a “monopoly” that would “hang to dry” every other player.
Kannan-Panchu back and forth
The first retired judge to reprimand Panchu was K. Kannan was June 22 article Titled ‘What the Dark Clouds Bring – Just Don’t Storm But Rain!’ published in live law,
Referring to Panchu as “my friend Sriram”, Kannan contemplated whether the lawyer had “cross-checked” the facts.
Kannan questioned why Panchu found it problematic that the judges, past or present, were trustees. “What do we expect judges to do on courts and outside court hours… go to places of worship or attend weddings?” He asked.
Kannan also argued that the IAMC had a “fee scale” of Rs 7,500 to 1 lakh, which could not be exceeded even for several crore disputes. “This is a fraction of the fee lawyers charge their clients for guidance in the arbitration session,” he wrote.
On Panchu’s claim that the cases were asked to be referred to the NCLT, Kannan demanded that the record be kept straight.
He said that so far only two cases have been referred to IAMC from Hyderabad Bench of NCLT, one to him and the other to Panchu. Justice Kannan’s article claims that neither of them is doing the cases for free.
Five days later on June 27 Wire Posted by Panchu answer Regarding Kannan’s article, where he went home he did not think it was ethical to serve judges to set up an arbitration centre.
“The problem arises when three different judges have come together to form an association, neither in a representative capacity for the court, nor in any other official capacity. The apex court has not sanctioned any such institution. “
In this article, Panchu admitted that he had in fact accepted an assignment from IAMC as a mediator.
‘Extraordinary attack on Supreme Court’
28 in june live law Lekh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, accused panchu For attacking the “most extraordinary attack on the Supreme Court” and “the reputation of some of its finest sitting and former judges”.
Sankaranarayanan went on to present the “facts” regarding the IAMC. He claimed that the land allotted by the state government was in line with the 2017 report of the Justice Srikrishna Committee, which said that infrastructural support should be given by the government without mediation or interference from the arbitration centre.
As for the trustees, he said he has personally confirmed that none of them have received meeting fees or remuneration.
In addition, he wrote that a CEO is in charge of day-to-day affairs. Arbitrators are appointed by mutual consent of the parties and in case of dispute, the CEO proposes a panel in consultation with the Governing Council. He said the trustees have no role.
Last op-ed?
was back with panchu one more reply In Wire on 10 July, in which he once again reiterated his concerns with the “flawed command and control” of the IAMC.
He reiterated his allegation that the trust had requested and received “a huge amount from the Government of Telangana”, which included land worth “250 crores” and a “major commercial built up area of 25,000 square feet in the financial district of Hyderabad”.
Addressing Sankaranarayanan’s allegation that he had attacked the SC, Panchu wrote: “Not at all, sir, it only focuses on the misdeeds of three judges whose actions attack the integrity of the institution.”
(Edited by Aswari Singh)
read also, Fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya sentenced to 4 months in jail for contempt of court