I
have come across the title phrase in at least a few judgements of the Supreme
Court of India while rejecting the reasons of a lower court and setting aside its
decision. I do not know why, but in the context of the “tussle” between the trial
court and the Karnataka High Court over the J Jayalalithaa’s disproportionate
assets case this phrase has come to dominate my thinking.
But,
before I go into the why of such thinking, let me say that I find that phrase
abhorrent, even given that the Supreme Court may have good enough reasons for
mouthing those words. Yet, my severe unease comes from the fact that there can
be no response to such an evaluation, as there is no authority to appeal to for
“expunging” the comments by the Supreme Court Bench. To make an unsavory
comparison, it is much like branding cattle. Tut, tut … After this alleged “non-application
of mind”, can any case be assigned to the judge whose judgment has been
reversed?
Back
to Jayalalithaa’s case. Obviously I have no access to the details of the case
beyond what is available in main stream media, and even that only at many
removes as I am not too bothered. If the Exchequer gets a few crores of rupees,
so be it; my household budget needs no adjustments.
My
interest in this case is at a different level. The dispute between the two contradicting
decisions is over an audit job. But, as the assessments as regards the quantum
of disproportionate assets of the trial court and the high court differ by almost
an order – in terms to be understood only mathematically, from about 8% to 70% –
my curiosity level has gone through the roof. I believe if the case goes to the
Supreme Court, it will be hard put not to use the title phrase, against the
judge of either the trial court or the high court! The “false” reasoning in
this case cannot have any reason beyond “non-application of mind”. Is such
mindlessness a case of immathematicity (innumeracy as applied to auditing!), or
more fundamentally, one of auditing itself?
At
first instance, it looks like it is one of mathematics. The case of Nobel
Laureate Kenneth Rogoff comes to mind. Not very long ago he made a claim about
when a country would go into debt trap. And, it later came out that there were mistakes
on his MS Excel sheets and his predictions are wrong. I am not sure whether the
economist admitted mea culpa.
But
thinking further, we may note that in the instant case, the difference in the
numbers arose because the items in the audit were shifted from one side of the
ledger to the other side. Yet, doing the job of the auditors, both the judges
must have done enough due diligence (one, over 18 long years, and other in a “blink-of-an-eye”)
before placing the numbers on one side. If the numbers themselves are not to be
blamed, even then it is a fit case for “non-application of mind”.
Now,
my curiosity has reached sky high.
What
will the Supreme Court say? Did the erring judge not know his numbers or did
not know where to put them? Where exactly and through whom the “non-application
of mind” played its part?
It
is for this reason and solely for this reason, I would like an appeal of the
Karnataka High Court decision.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
No comments:
Post a Comment