Posted on 12th November, 2024 (GMT 08:30 hrs)
ABSTRACT
The article explores Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s alleged political bias and involvement in high-profile legal cases, including defending Ajay Piramal and the RBI-appointed CoC in the DHFL scam. It highlights Mehta’s longstanding connections with BJP figures, casting doubt on his impartiality. The DHFL case involved significant financial misconduct, and Mehta’s defense emphasizes creditor rights while ignoring alleged malpractices. The piece critiques Mehta’s selective justice approach, advocating for public pressure to uphold constitutional principles and unbiased judiciary practices.
Dedicated to all the DHFL Scam victims who are struggling with their patience and by spending their money to the expensive corridors of the Indian judiciary…
Introduction
The Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, is appearing as the defendant of Mr. Ajay Piramal and the RBI-appointed CoC in the DHFL case. However, the source of expenditure for the whole process of litigation on behalf of RBI-appointed CoC is still unknown.
If we have to consider SGI Mr. Tushar Mehta in a separate manner in terms of generating a brief yet comprehensive profile of sorts (as we did in the cases of Justice Trivedi⤡ and Justice Sharma⤡), we have to set the records straight as much as possible and feasible.
Electoral Bonds and Political Affiliations
During a Supreme Court hearing on the Electoral Bonds Scheme, a lively exchange took place between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. Sibal, formerly with the Congress party, clarified his current political independence, responding to Mehta’s suggestions about political affiliations. Mehta, representing the government, also claimed that he lacks a formal BJP membership, but does the same absolve him of his long-term associations with the BJP, as we shall note consequently?
This interaction between Sibal and Mehta highlighted the sensitivity around political associations, biases and affiliations as the court scrutinized the scheme’s transparency and potential partisan influence. The hearing continued to probe the legal implications of the scheme’s secrecy on political donations, subsequently to declare it unconstitutional without holding any “follow-up” criminal proceedings regarding the opaque crony political party-corporate tycoon nexus.
Who is in BJP and who is in Congress? SG Tushar Mehta, Kapil Sibal discuss political affiliations during electoral bonds case VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 2nd November, 2023 ©Bar and Bench)
Saradha-Narada, BJP’s Manipulation of Governmental Agencies and…
Moving ahead: In July 2021, controversy erupted when Suvendu Adhikari, West Bengal’s Leader of Opposition and an accused in the Narada sting and Saradha chit fund cases, visited the official residence of Mr. Mehta. The Trinamool Congress (TMC) strongly criticized this meeting, alleging impropriety due to Mehta’s role as a representative of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) (and thereof, the BJP) in these cases. The TMC demanded Mehta’s resignation, asserting the meeting compromised public trust in the judiciary and its constitutionally granted independence.
However, Mehta defended himself upon hearing such allegations by saying that Adhikari had arrived unannounced and was informed he could not meet with him. Despite Mehta’s denial of the meeting, TMC continued to seek his removal from office, urging both the Prime Minister and the President to address this as a matter of conflict of interest and to uphold the integrity as well as independence of legal institutions.
Tushar Mehta’s arc — from apprentice to a Congressman lawyer in Gujarat to India’s second most senior law officer VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 11th July, 2021 ©The Indian Express)
The thing is, despite the evident fact that the TMC indeed thrives on mobocracy, lumpenization of politics, systemic corruption, rape culture and so on, the inclination of the CBI over the past decade of becoming merely a tool for the BJP that raids and imprisons (along with ED and IT Department) selectively leaders or members of the Political Opposition whilst leaving the BJP members “unperturbed” despite the existence of excruciating evidence in favour of the said party being filled with a significant number of persons with legal conflicts, making astronomical amounts of money from mostly unknown sources, of exploiting key institutions of Indian democracy, manipulating votes and so on. What did Mr. Mehta say regarding all that, till date? Nothing as of yet. One should not even expect him to say anything in this connection, for he might fear the loss of his life in the hands of the Hindutva goons if he dares to raise a voice against their fascist whims.
Tushar Mehta’s Case-Histories
As the above report of The Indian Express rightly noted in this regard:
“This isn’t the first instance Mehta finds himself in a political slugfest. His critics often talk about how he is raring to drop the gloves against the Opposition in the court instead of making arguments grounded in law. For the Modi government, especially in its second term, 55-year old Mehta has emerged as The trouble-shooter in virtually every high-stakes legal battle. From the Covid management and oxygen crisis cases in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court to appearing in a bail case against former Union home minister P Chidambaram in a district court in Delhi, to defending the government over the delay in filing FIRs in communal riot cases in the national capital — Mehta has held the government’s brief without fail since he arrived in Delhi seven years ago.”
Let us delve deeper into Tushar Mehta’s career in the judiciary by extrapolating on the above-mentioned cases, verdicts and even beyond.
In 2000, Tushar Mehta began his legal association with the Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, chaired by Amit Shah. Mehta and Shah built a professional friendship, working long hours on petition drafts. Mehta later represented Shah in litigation over the Gujarat Cricket Association (GCA) elections, where Shah contested Congress leader Narhari Amin’s influence, ultimately becoming GCA vice-president in 2009.
Mehta’s legal ascent began in earnest in 2008, when Shah, then a junior Gujarat minister with portfolios in law and home affairs, appointed him as Additional Advocate General (AAG). As AAG, Mehta handled civil cases on behalf of the Gujarat state government. His former junior, Devang Vyas, who now serves as the Additional Solicitor General of India at the Gujarat High Court, described Mehta’s responsibilities to The Sunday Express. In 2010, Mehta represented Gujarat in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case, in which Shah was implicated, though Shah was acquitted by a Mumbai court in 2014.
When Narendra Modi became Prime Minister that same year, Mehta joined Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi’s team as one of six Additional Solicitors General. A Gujarat native in a team largely composed of Delhi-based lawyers close to Arun Jaitley, Mehta’s shift to Delhi surprised even him, as he shared in an interview with The Sunday Express, stating, “I had just expanded and renovated my office in Ahmedabad” when the Prime Minister’s office called him.
Following Mukul Rohatgi’s (the deus ex machina of the DHFL victims’ hostile “extinguishment”) resignation as Attorney General in 2017, the government saw a wave of resignations from its legal team, increasing Mehta’s importance as he handled numerous high-profile cases, including the investigation into Judge B H Loya’s death, the deportation of Rohingyas, and the challenge to Article 35A1. After Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar resigned in October 2017, Mehta was eventually appointed Solicitor General on October 10, 2018. Among his most notable cases as SG has been the abrogation of Article 370; on August 5, 2019, Mehta was with Home Minister Amit Shah in Parliament as Shah announced the revocation.
Regarding Article 370, there was a debate between Mr. Kapil Sibal and the other petitioners against the abrogation of the Article 370 in the State of Jammu & Kashmir and the former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud’s bench. In relation to the abrogation of Article 370, which had provided special autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), the Supreme Court examined the legal process by which Article 370 was revoked in 2019. During the hearing in August 2023, the petitioners including Mr. Sibal argued that without a functioning Constituent Assembly in J&K, no authority had held the right to recommend the revocation of Article 370, as mandated by the Article itself. The petitioners contended that Article 370 could only have been altered with a recommendation from J&K’s Constituent Assembly, which had ceased to exist after 1957. Therefore, they argued, the provision had become permanent, as no legal body remained to suggest its removal. The petitioners also raised concerns about the constitutional legality of using J&K’s Legislative Assembly (or Governor) as a substitute for the Constituent Assembly in the abrogation process. In response, the government’s counsel maintained that Article 370 had been a “temporary provision,” integrated with a framework that allowed for gradual constitutional integration of J&K with India. According to the government, the temporary status implied the potential for eventual abrogation or modification, asserting that the President and Parliament could have exercised this authority under exceptional circumstances. This is where the bone of contention lies, in so far as the BJP government’s move for abrogation implied a justification of its outright suppression of human rights in J&K, to which the opposing petitioners had rightly pointed out the legal irrevocability in this context in preserving the core intent of the Indian Constitution as it was framed. Overall, Former CJI Chandrachud and Mr. Tushar Mehta sided with the BJP’s claims, which draws a really bleak picture of the present state of the Indian judiciary. View the entire courtroom debate here⤡. Also view the report of the debate here: Who can recommend revocation of Art 370 when no constituent assembly exists in J-K, asks SC VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 2nd August, 2023 ©The Economic Times). In order to view the arbitrariness with which the BJP has acted with regard to Article 370 without even considering the parallel special provisions as enlisted in Article 371, view this paper-letter: IF ARTICLE 370 IS REVOKED, WHY NOT ARTICLE 371 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION? VIEW HERE ⤡
Mehta’s close ties with Shah and the BJP in general have remained evident throughout his career. For instance, as Additional Solicitor General in 2017, Mehta represented Amit Shah’s son Jay Shah in a defamation case against The Wire. Controversy arose regarding his participation in a private case, but then-Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad clarified that Mehta had received official permission.
A dedicated advocate, Mehta is known for his willingness to represent cases personally, even in lower courts. His specific politico-legal role was on display during the Aircel-Maxis case involving P Chidambaram, where Mehta appeared at multiple judicial levels, including the Patiala House District Court, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court — sometimes all on the same day. Justifying this approach, Mehta justified himself by saying that when the opposition fields multiple high-profile lawyers, the government must respond in kind.
Mehta’s somewhat assertive courtroom style often emphasizes a narrative of “national security” and questions the motives of opposing petitioners, which, in majority of the cases, belong to this or that party of the opposition. This approach has sometimes drawn criticism for its express political overtones. For example, when cases challenging the Kashmir clampdown were heard in the Supreme Court, Mehta urged the bench to trust the security forces instead of presenting a standard legal argument. On March 31, during a Supreme Court hearing on migrant workers stranded by the COVID-19 lockdown, Mehta accused critics of being “prophets of doom” lacking a certain version of “patriotism”, asserting that ministers were working tirelessly to address the crisis.
Similarly, during a February hearing on the Delhi pogrom (just before the pLandemic), when Justice S. Muralidhar questioned the government’s delay in filing cases against the rioters, Mehta remarked that the judge should “not get angry.” Supporters within government and BJP circles argue that Mehta’s combative approach is necessary for the challenging cases he tackles. One BJP official even noted that while the Attorney General serves as an advisor to the court, the Solicitor General’s role is to ensure the government’s stance is firmly presented.
Mehta and the DHFL Scam
It appears that Mr. Mehta suffers from a politically-infiltrated confirmation bias2 overshadowing most of his judicial judgements over the course of years. He is just like Justice Arun Kumar Mishra, the former NHRC Chariman, a close associate of Mr. Amit Shah. During Justice Mishra’s tenure, the DHFL victims’ plea to seek restorative justice at the NHRC on the grounds of the abuse of business-related rights was left unheard due to the BJP’s alleged involvement in the DHFL scam.
Coming back to the implications of the above account with regard to Mr. Mehta in the cases of DHFL Scam, we must note the kind of arguments he is usually presenting before the Supreme Court of India in the course of “defending the indefensible” RBI-Appointed CoC and Mr. Ajay Piramal, both with close alleged associations with the BJP:
According to Mr. Mehta, the financial creditors bear a statutory responsibility to ensure the corporate debtor (CD) remains operational, with the CoC’s decision on the most commercially viable course being conclusive and beyond appeal. Ordinarily, upon the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), the Board of Directors is suspended. In this case, however, an administrator appointed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) superseded the Board entirely, thus terminating its existence and authority. Given the Board’s involvement in serious fraudulent activities, they were appropriately barred from being heard in subsequent proceedings. Only the directors faced arrest, while other employees and records were accessible to the administrator, who compiled a detailed report from the available information.
Mr. Mehta went on to say that Avoidance transactions fall into two categories: transactions recoverable upon invalidation by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and transactions involving significant fraud, such as the diversion of funds to fictitious accounts—approximately 240,000 in this case. Judicial precedents typically assign a nominal value of Re. 1/- to such fraudulent transactions. Only identifiable transactions with specific parties are eligible for recovery. As reports concerning avoidance transactions became available, the administrator filed applications before the NCLT, with prominent agencies like Grant Thornton appointed for investigation. The scale of the fraud was highlighted through multiple questionable transactions by the former promoters, viz., the Wadhawan brothers, including instances such as the “Bandra books” and the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, underscoring the extensive nature of the misconduct involved.
This entire line of argumentation makes the case for the CoC’s conduct as well as Mr. Piramal ownership by justifying many of the illegitimate, irregular and contrary to law practices done by both during the resolution process of the DHFL as well as in the documentation of Mr. Piramal’s financially abusive, allegedly adverse possessive resolution plan that made significant haircuts for the small creditors.
Conclusion
Hence, given Mr. Mehta’s transparent tie-ups with the BJP spanning across decades, it is no wonder that he will come to defend the Piramal and CoC’s alleged malpractices.
However, several points of pressure could be created by virtue of utilizing the fifth pillar of democracy (especially, the Non-Godi Media) by the DHFL victims in order to compel SGI Mehta to act in favour of morality, the robust rule of law as preserved by the Constitution and the democratized view of justice as such.
ENDNOTES
- Article 35A was a provision in the Indian Constitution that allowed the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature to define “permanent residents” of the state and grant them certain special rights and privileges. ↩︎
- Confirmation bias, also termed as confirmatory, myside, or congeniality bias, reflects our tendency to favor, interpret, emphasize, and recall information that affirms our pre-existing beliefs or values. This cognitive bias drives individuals to spotlight supportive information while sidelining conflicting evidence or to interpret ambiguous data in ways that bolster their viewpoints. Such bias intensifies when the anticipated result is desired, the matter holds emotional weight, or the beliefs are deeply ingrained. ↩︎
Once in a Blue Moon Academia 
LikeLiked by 1 person