Anil Ambani: AD CAMPAIGN

Ad campaign sullies ADAG’s corporate image; Statements made are “fraught with risk” since the matter is sub judice

The Anil Ambani group continued to keep up its media offensive. Newspaper advertisements questioning the government's role continued to appear in the mainstream newspapers across the country. These advertisements come just before the case is to be debated in the Supreme Court on 1 September, the endgame in a long three-year legal battle.

Commenting on ADAG advertising campaign, Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney General of India, said there is something very inappropriate about this and "Anil Ambani's media offensive will not affect the court's judgement." However, added that the ADAG spat may be an attempt to influence the policy makers.

He feels the government should not respond to ADAG's media offensive and should only repond to the affidavit and suggest that NTPC should not join Anil Ambani's battle in the press.

Meanwhile dismissing the advertisement campaign unleashed by Anil Ambani group against Mukesh Ambani-led RIL and Petroleum Ministry, Law minister Veerappa Moily on Wednesday said the government was "not interested" in such a move.

"We are not interested in any advertisement campaign by any private party and will not comment as the matter is sub-judice," Moily said emerging out of meeting a ministerial group formed to supervise the government's stand on the gas dispute in the Supreme Court.

The release of the advertisements absolutely demonstrates the fact that Reliance Natural Resources Ltd (an R-Adag firm) is indulging in an orchestrated campaign and it’s an deliberate attempt to bring into public debate and prejudge the issues that are pending adjudication before the honorable courts.

Here is a verbatim transcript of the exclusive interview with Soli Sorabjee on CNBC-TV18.

Q: You have seen what has been going on. The ads are one part of it. It has probably been a public slugfest even as the Supreme Court is yet to take up the matter in right earnest on September 1. How are you reading this entire public spat so to speak in a court proceeding?

A: To be quite honest, I have not really seen it, but I gather from what you are saying that the Anil Ambani camp is projecting its point of view and is sort of advocating what I suppose it would be submitting through its counsel before the Supreme Court.
I don’t know whether you asked me whether that amounts to contempt or whether it is otherwise inappropriate and improper. I don’t think it would amount to contempt because it doesn’t really obstruct the administration of justice. I suppose the idea is to influence the people in government, people in higher places about what is going on.
But in any case, even if it is not contempt strictly speaking, it is a criminal offence. I think there is something very inappropriate about this.

Q: You are saying this does not actually amount to contempt of court but it is improper. Also, this is not something new that has been spoken about by the Anil Ambani camp because this was a statement read out by Anil Ambani at the RNRL AGM about three weeks ago, pretty much the same fact being put out there as part of this advertising campaign. What sort of a precedent does this actually set to your mind, and is this a dangerous precedent?
A: The essence of contempt is that it obstructs the administration of justice. It seriously interferes with the fair dispensation of justice. I don’t think Anil Ambani’s, as you say; media offensive is going to at all affect the Supreme Court judges, judges are made of sterner stuff. They are not going to take any notice of it. Even if they take notice of it, they will disregard it.
They will only be concerned with what his counsel submits before the Supreme Court, which I suppose maybe pretty well the same thing what he is saying in the press. I have got a feeling that he is doing this in order to influence the decision makers, who I believe are just viewed as a meeting tomorrow, there was one today, tomorrow. That seems to be his idea. That doesn’t amount to contempt in my opinion.

Q: As a former Attorney General of this country what should the government response to your mind be, because this is an empowered panel setup by the PM? Should the government in your opinion be responding to this sort of a campaign?
A: I think the government should ignore it and not give it importance.

Q: Once again we don’t know whether the government, there were reports or there were speculation that statement of some sort will actually be put out by the government. That hasn’t happened this evening. We understand that another meeting is possibly going to take place tomorrow of this panel. Do you think that this merits some sort of a response from the Petroleum Ministry at this point in time?
A: I don’t know what exactly is said. Responding would mean what the government should respond to what he stated in the Supreme Court by view of an affidavit or behalf of written submissions – that’s where the government should respond through Solicitor General or through the officers – not respond to him in the press. Why should the government join this if I may say so – a very distasteful spectacle of trying to stash issues in the press which would be ultimately determined by the Supreme Court? This is for public consumption as far as I can see and as I have said it is rather very inappropriate.

Q: There has also now a question mark, of course there is a separate case that is on between RIL and NTPC, now there have been questions raised on whether NTPC should actually join the fight on between RIL and RNRL – whether NTPC should actually file a special leave petition. In your assessment would that be an appropriate thing to do at this point in time given the fact that the RIL-NTPC case is continuing to run in another court?
A: That is something NTPC will have to decide on that issue depending on what exactly is involved in the case. I would say generally speaking, NTPC or anyone should not join the Anil Ambani battle in the press – I am very clear about that. It is in the court, join the battle in the court, fight your forensic battle and not media battle.

Q: We’ve also seen a curious case where the government actually in the Bombay High Court withdrew its affidavit – the Supreme Court they are actually now trying to amend the original SLP. It is also a curious case of somewhat back and fourth on the part of the government. How are you reading the government’s response to this entire matter?
A: It is not for the first time that the government has changed its mind. It happens. It takes its stand at a particular point of time and may be on reconsideration of things it should revise the stand and that can happen. It has happened when I was Attorney General – very often the department on instructions asks the Law officers to take a particular stand which was realized later on that is not the correct stand and they withdrew it. In the Ram Setu matter it has happened to give you one example. So don’t read much into that. It happens because there are different opinions, different perceptions of what should be said or should be done and if it is not done and if you do something else – don’t make inferences of any collusion with one side or the other – that won’t be correct. At the most one can say it was inefficiency in the first place – that’s the most charitable explanation.



Source: www.moneycontrol.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________