Friday, May 15, 2015

Non-application of mind

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: