Why Do They Use Such Vague Language: Orissa High Court CJ To ASI Counsel

Cuttack: A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Chief Justice S Muralidhar and Justice RK Pattanaik yesterday heard the arguments by the counsel of the Archeological Survey of India during the hearing of the Heritage Corridor Project case. The arguments by the counsel of the ASI just showed how casual has been in the case. Its advocate, while arguing in front of the Bench, fumbles, requests another chance for filing detailed affidavit, and uses language that is so confusing. The Chief Justice, while reading the affidavit presented by the ASI and hearing its counsel, many a times rebuked them for not coming to the Court seriously and talking confusingly. The affidavit in the Court by the ASI says that the National Monuments Authority is the authority and in its oral arguments, the Counsel says that the NMA has no authority on giving permission to the project. There was no clarity in the affidavit itself and to which the CJ categorically rebukes them.

During the arguments, when the counsel for the ASI fumbles, the CJ says him to be serious in his submissions. The Chief Justice also asks him if the submissions are his own or somebody else is giving the instructions. Seeking pardon from the CJ, the ASI advocate says he will come back with full clarity. Once, the High Court Bench was also heard saying the advocate, you should be serious before a High Court and don’t say things which are not there in the affidavit please.

Regarding the submissions made in the affidavit by the ASI, the High Court slammed the ASI over the language in which the affidavit was written regarding the temple work and the construction report. It said, “From the court’s point of view, we expect the authorities to say something more categorically.” The Chief Justice expressed displeasure over the way the conclusion has been written in the affidavit… The expert bodies should make clear statements. When we are asking them specifically is there any damage to any monument… damage to the temple …you have to be very categorical, not language like this…why do they use such vague language, the HC said.

The Chief Justice, referring to the 3rd point in the conclusion, said that “We expect authorities to say something more categorical. This is bureaucratic…What is this “might have destroyed” and what is this “every possibility”. We expect expert bodies to make more clear statements”. He said “You have to be very categorical, not language like this…”every possibility” “might have destroyed”…”archaeological remains of the heritage site”…Why do they use such vague language?…It must be specific”.

If one sees the total proceedings of the High Court of Orissa on the Heritage Corridor Project of Tuesday, it is very clear that the ASI has been instigated by some vested interests in writing the affidavit. The casual manner in which the ASI advocate presents the case and the invalid arguments are nothing but a serious attempt without any valid point to get the stay order on works.