Goa AG withdraws petition from SC against Goa HC judgment

Goa’s controversial Advocate General Subodh Kantak withdrew the Special Leave Petition (SLP) he had filed in the Supreme Court against social activist Advocate Aires Rodrigues. 



The AG, in his SLP, had challenged the judgment of Justice Nelson Britto in the Bombay High Court at Goa on a petition filed by Mr Rodrigues against him. He had also sought an order from the Supreme Court restraining Mr Rodrigues from making any further allegations and statements against him and the office of Advocate General of Goa.



However, his senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi withdrew the petition, which was being heard by a Bench comprising of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam. 



A visibly annoyed Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan asked Mr Rohtagi as to why Advocate General Mr Subodh Kantak had filed the defamation case against Mr Rodrigues if he was so worried about facing the cross examination. 



‘In a defamation case the complainant has to be ready to face all sorts of questions,’ remarked Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam. 



Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam also directed Panaji Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Mr Edgar Fernandes to conduct the proceedings of the defamation case as expeditiously as possible. 



On August 28 this year Justice N A Britto of the Bombay High Court in a 34 page landmark judgment had quashed and set aside the orders of the Panaji Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Mr Edgar Fernandes which had disallowed Advocate Rodrigues from asking Advocate General Subodh Kantak questions on his character, conduct and competence. 



Further cross examination of Mr Kantak by Advocate Rodrigues is now scheduled to resume on November 13, with Adv Rodrigues making it amply clear that he would intensely cross examine Mr Kantak. 



Mr Kantak, though is the complainant in the defamation case before the JMFC, has been facing a grilling cross-examination by Adv Rodrigues. Mr Kantak, allegedly to avoid the cross examination, sought many adjournments either stating that he had a stomach upset or was busy in the High Court. 



It has been Adv Rodrigues’s stand that the Advocate General being a constitutional functionary is a public official and that acts of public officials in discharge of their official duties is open to public scrutiny and criticism not amounting to defamation. 



Mr Kantak is India’s first Advocate General to challenge before the Supreme Court a High Court order passed against him. He is also India’s first Advocate General to file a defamation case against an Advocate. He is the only Advocate General to have had to face High Court criminal proceedings filed by an advocate. 



It is also for the first time that a High Court has had to pass a judgment in a criminal writ petition against an Advocate General. 



Mr Kantak is also India’s only Advocate General who has been directed to pay costs for seeking to adjourn a case filed by him. 



It may be recalled that after Adv Rodrigues highlighted the exorbitant fees being paid to the Advocate General of Goa by the government. Mr Kantak initiated defamation proceedings seeking Rs 15 crores by way of compensation from Adv Rodrigues. 



A meeting of the Congress Legislative Party (CLP) was also highly critical of Mr Kantak’s conduct. The BJP, MGP, UGDP, Save Goa Front, Shiv Sena and even the Goa unit of the NCP had demanded the removal of Mr Kantak from the post of Advocate General.