Great misfortune that I had to decide against KK Venugopal when I was judge: Justice Rohinton Nariman

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman hailed Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal’s role in shaping his career and lamented that as a judge, it was his ‘great misfortune’ that he had to rule against KK Venugopal in most of the cases because of the government he was representing. .Nariman was a junior in Venugopal’s chambers before he started his independent practice.“Mr. Venugopal shaped my career as a matter of fact. I must tell you that when I was Judge and he was Attorney General, it was my great misfortune to have to decide against him in almost every matter that he appeared before me, because of the government he was representing,” the former judge said. He was delivering the keynote address at the inauguration of Milon K Banerji Centre for Arbitration Law (MKBAC) at the NALSAR University of Law campus on February 15.The centre has been established through an endowment by Senior Advocate Gourab Banerji, a donor and patron of the MKBAC. It is named after late Milon K Banerji, a distinguished jurist who served as the Attorney General for two terms - 1992 to1996 and 2004 to 2009..It was my great misfortune to have to decide against him in almost every matter that he appeared before me, because of the government he was representing.Justice Rohinton Nariman .Venugopal was appointed Attorney General by the NDA government in 2017, a position he held till September 2022. Nariman was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court of India in July 2014, he retired in August 2021.During the period, Venugopal argued many cases before Justice Nariman including the notable right to privacy case related to Aadhaar validity..In his speech, Justice Nariman also recounted his experiences with Justice Jeevan Reddy. “When I was a counsel, I was appreciated as counsel, but lost almost every matter that I argued before Justice Reddy because I happened to be arguing against the revenue. Justice Jeevan Reddy was a man who thought that unless there was revenue collection and there was tax collection, this country couldn't move forward.”.Justice Nariman also spoke about Milon Banerjee, whom he described as a “father figure” in the legal profession. “Milon Banerji was, to me, like a father figure in the profession. He was a lawyer's lawyer,” he said. Recalling the famous LIC vs. Escorts case, Nariman noted Banerji’s exceptional legal acumen. “Every time we cited something, Milon Banerji cited something better and we had to meet whatever he used to cite against us. Ultimately, we lost the case in the Supreme Court also largely because of his legal expertise.”He also shared a personal anecdote about an arbitration case where Banerji, as his opponent, displayed remarkable magnanimity. “Milon Banerji took me over, spoke to me for half an hour as a father figure, and made me continue with the arbitration as my opponent.”.Milon Banerji was, to me, like a father figure in the profession.Justice Rohinton Nariman .Justice Nariman also highlighted the shortcomings of Arbitration Act of 1996. “When it comes to domestic arbitrations, we didn't start on a clean slate. We had a 1940 Act,” he said.He criticised the parity between domestic and international awards under the 1996 Act, calling it a “grave mistake.” .He pointed out that while the 2016 amendment introduced the ground of “patent illegality,” it fell short of addressing deeper issues.He cited the recent Delhi Metro Rail Corporation case as an example of the challenges in arbitration. “The Division bench found that the award suffered from defects of patent illegality. However, the Supreme Court restored the single-judge’s decision. Review was dismissed, a curative petition was preferred, which, curiously enough, was allowed by the learned Chief Justice. Obviously, the Chief Justice seemed to have had some discomfiture with the fact that there were three engineers who decided. Though he put it in the pigeon hole of patent illegality. Obviously, according to me, so very difficult to put it in that pigeon hole. Whether cracks (in metro construction) were visible or not visible, and whether effective steps were not taken, are all matters of evidence.”.Justice Nariman proposed several reforms to improve the arbitration process in India. He suggested adopting a provision similar to Section 69 of the UK Arbitration Act, which allows appeals on points of law under specific conditions. “Perhaps as a first step, there should be an amendment along the lines of Section 69 of the UK,” he said..Section 69 of the UK Arbitration Act 1996 allows parties to appeal an arbitration award on a point of law, but only if both parties have not excluded this right by agreement. The appeal requires court permission, which is granted only if the legal question is of general public importance and the tribunal's decision is either clearly wrong or open to serious doubt. Justice Nariman also advocated for more radical changes, including bypassing the single-judge stage in arbitration petitions. “Maybe the single-judge step should be removed, and maybe we should go directly to a division bench in a Section 34 petition,” he suggested. Additionally, he called for a complete appeal on merits, covering both law and facts, to address the quality of arbitration awards being passed today..WATCH VIDEO