The Supreme Court’s secretary general VSR Avadhani has issued a press release that its former deputy registrar (research), Anup Surendranath, had resigned “on his own request as he wanted to pursue his interest in research projects in which he is involved in”.
The SC said that the reports that Surendranath, who heads NLU Delhi’s death penalty project that assisted convicted terrorist Yakub Memon but failed to stay his execution earlier this week, “resigned in protest of the execution of Yakub Memon or order of the Apex Court against stay of his execution” “is not only incorrect but highly misleading”.
The Supreme Court asked that “the Electronic and Print Media may immediately present the correct facts before the Public” “in order to dispel any misgivings created due to distorted news item”.
The court enclosed Surendranath’s resignation letter (below).
Surendranath had written on his Facebook page:
I have been contemplating this for a while now for a variety of reasons, but what was played out this week at the Supreme Court was the proverbial final nail --- I have resigned from my post at the Supreme Court to focus on death penalty work at the University.
It is in many ways liberating to to regain the freedom to write whatever I want and I hope to make full use of that in the next few days to discuss the events that transpired at the Supreme Court this week.
He added in another post:
It would be silly and naive to see the events of the last 24 hours at the Supreme Court as some triumph of the rule of law --- the two orders at 4pm on 29th July and 5am on 30th July (and the reasoning adopted therein) are instances of judicial abdication that must count amongst the darkest hours for the Supreme Court of India.
We have reached out to Surendranath for further comment.
Comments
So much for "having the balls" to quit (as Kian commented in a related story).
He looks like another just another sad employee who is scared of saying anything to his boss but outside the office becomes a digital tiger. I can think of plenty of associates younger than him who have had the courage to bluntly tell off Cyril and Shardul the real reasons why they quit AMSS.
I did not have any view on Dr Anup Surendranath before story of his resignation came out, but after reading his FB post and his resignation letter I have no difficulty coming to the conclusion that he was unfit for the wonderful opportunity that he had.
Kian, please name one, if you 've ever heard such?
(Will you censor this too?)
I'm not the one who claimed it was commonplace. But I think in this scenario it's fair enough.
Option 1: Resign and never speak of it again.
Option 2: Resign in a blaze of glory resignation letter, and then post it up on FB.
Option 2b: Resign in a blaze of glory resignation letter, then never talk of it again.
Option 3: Resign quietly and then post about how you really feel on FB.
Option 3b: Resign with a polite letter, tell your boss privately how you really feel, and then post about it on FB.
Option 4: Post about how much you hate your job on FB, and then resign however you want in a letter.
Except for option 1, all other options would open you up to all sorts of attacks.
So according to you and others, there was really no way for AS to play this unless he just kept quiet, is there?
You can publish that you received a name :-)
People inside know about it. People outside don't need to.
My personal interpretation, based on his FB post: he wanted to quit for a long time anyway (which he said), since he realised that he couldn't do his death penalty work fully and couldn't comment freely on such issues because of duty to SC he owed.
He clearly has some strong views about Memon judgment, which presumably would not be ethical for him to make public while still registrar.
Now he's quit, seems like he wants to be a lot more vocal about it.
Irrespective of your opposition to his views on DP, that seems like a reasonable decision to want to make, no?
To be fair, I think you're right and I don't think he expected this to blow up the way it did in the media, which is a strange beast... (I heard his name as a hashtag was trending on Twitter yesterday).
And there's nothing to suggest that he thinks he's the story if the media (and now the SC) chose to make him the story. He just posted on his FB to his friends about a life decision he made. I don't know why it's necessary to impute ulterior motives there in the absence of any evidence.
For the record, any comment that says "Kian you won't publish this" is usually correct in that assumption.
Better luck next time.
is when a reasonable lawyer finds herself in a position (or where there is a perception that she is in a position) where representation of one client (broadly speaking, area of interest or in the pursuit of her professional responsibilities - whatever they may be) will cause, or result in, the interests of another client being materially adversely affected or materially prejudiced..
Chairwoman, TPSI
Boring Sunday evening perhaps?
Is anyone else getting slightly bored by this or is it entertaining? If readers are enjoying this we can keep this circus going for a bit :)
We as a nation really need to get our priorities straight in life!
So many prisoners are waiting to be heard in Indian jails, yet Mr Memon's case was the proverbial nail?!
We are talking about Mr Surendranath because of the very fact that he is receiving media attention. I work with the Government of India. I don't agree with every decision they make, but even if I quit and start speaking from a high moral ground, who will listen to me?
Why is Mr Surendranath questioning the Supreme Court and its justices?
He resigned. Fine. He wants to speak. Fine. What's the big deal?
YM took advantage of our judicial systems, managed to delay it and took the advantage of that very delay to say that he deserved clemency! Bravo!!
No one is talking about the people who died during the Gurdaspur attack. Isn't their right to life an absolute one too?
1. "First of all, he has the right to resign for 40 reasons and write only one valid reason in his resignation letter." - True, he can write one valid reason to his superiors and rave and rant about the other 39 reasons to his peers. While I don't speak for the others, I atleast agree with you on this.
2. "With regard to the conflict matter, there can be some valid points raised. However, that is entirely between Anup and his employers (NLUD and SC). If they chose to waive and/or ignore the conflict,..." - Actually (i) SC need to be aware of his conflict to be able to evaluate waiving/ignoring the conflict. NLUD does not really have a stake in this so no need to drag them here. The question is did he inform his SC superiors of the conflict? Or did he hide the conflict and continue to act through his Clinic? I don't know the answer, but from the comments of others, I understand that this conflict hadn't been highlighted to the SC. I am happy to be corrected.
3. "I doubt he owes any duty to the mass to do any more" - Err. Yes he does. The SC needs to be perceived as unbiased and neutral. Irrespective of the answer to my previous question, the very fact that his actions (the facebook rant) has made so many people question the conflict, is sufficient to colour the perception of the SC as neutral. As a lawyer (and read the Bar council rules of any Bar), his duty was to uphold the dignity of the Court, which he, by his actions, purposely or unconsciously brought to question.
4. "He hasn't given any interview, published any scathing column post-resignation, or anything like that. All he has done is come up with a Facebook post and it is the media that has had a field day with it" - The fact that Newspaper articles are headlining "SC Official Quits Due to Disagreement with Yakub Death Sentence" and his quote in these articles instead of clarifying is just "no comments" is even more disturbing. The newspapers are sensationalising the issue, yes. But he had a chance to correct the perception with an appropriate quote, something he chose not to do. A 'no comment' is as much as a comment as a 'concurring comment'. He should have clarified, it was a duty he owed to the Court.
4. "With regard to the death penalty issue, I personally am for the penalty and against Anup's stand. However, as Kian (and a handful others) have been repeatedly mentioning here, that is scarcely the point of contention here." - I agree with you on this point. I am against the death penalty and therefore pro Anup and anti your stance, but that is not the point.
5. "Hypocrisy means doing the same thing that you are condemning, not condemning one thing and not rising up in arms against everything similar." - I agree with you. Except we are taking up arms against the issue we see. The conflict of interest that was hidden, and the facts that (i) Anup could have abused his position in the court to influence the judgement (which we have no way of knowing whether he tried or didnt) and (ii) the fact that the common man can think that Anup might have tried abusing his position (even if he didn't) and therefore bring disrepute to the neutrality of the SC.
Funny that, I seemed to have agreed with almost each individual sentence of yours, and still disagreed with everything you said.
Terrorist kills innocent people! Outrage! Terrible! Hang the bastard!
All of that kind of goes without saying, why would you want to read it in a newspaper? It's hardly copy that will make you think or understand the world better, would it?
Try writing an article on the ppl who take bullets in their chest so we can sleep peacefully at night. Yeah, the likes of SP Baljit Singh. Then we will talk about Anup's "martyrdom". Right?
We're not Firstpost, the Huffington Post or the Mirror.
We're a website that writes about law and lawyers. Was that not obvious?
[quote]Dont think there is anything here to argue about. You have got my point right?
You can for example write an article on the need to retain AFSPA in J&K keeping in mind the grave risks to life faced by our security personnel. Or for that matter, why India decided against pursuing Saurabh Kalia's torture case in the ICC? I didn't exactly tell u to write about "bullets in the chest". I said sometimes our media should just STOP playing up the "victim's" case. The real victims are elsewhere. Oh btw, didnt find too much law in this article on Anup's resignation. That's a non-event as far as I am concerned.[/quote]
Thanks for your calmly argued point, I agree that there's stuff we could and should be writing about but don't, though I fundamentally disagree with how you suggest we write about them.
Taking one of your examples, the AFSPA article you suggest wouldn't be very balanced. I think a much more interesting and important article would be to state the valuable role the AFSPA plays and how hard it is for the military in what is a quasi-warzone at times, but it would be journalist's duty to also critically look at the AFSPA, which has also been blamed for numerous human rights abuses in a number of regions in India.
In my view, the media is supposed to hold up a mirror to power and critically examine the power it wields.
The AFSPA is not at a risk of going anywhere anytime soon, as far as I'm aware, so why write something else that unequivocally buttresses it? That sounds suspiciously like it'd be government propaganda?
'Victims' as you put it, or those that find themselves at the receiving end of the might of the state's apparatus - rightly or wrongly - are the ones who need protecting the most by lawyers, as well as often times the media.
These 'victims' are exactly the ones are the ones that don't have a voice or a PR agency or the lure of a pat on the back from the bigshot politicians or corporates for the journalist.
These are the important stories that need to be told because they are difficult and can result in intimidation and threats and disapproval from the government.
These are also the kind of stories that are important in a democracy.
On AS - like I said, LI is a website for lawyers and we write about lawyers (like AS) and the courts (such as the SC). This story checks both boxes, in my opinion.
And how exactly is it any different to send a pretty much standard form resignation letter and then express his views later? Id think thats the right way to go ant it considering it gives him the time to contemplate his stand on such a sensitive issue and then put it up in public where its food for trolls.
Anyway I dont see what the SC registry's problem was. Yes he said something in his resignation letter and then went on to explain his reasons in a post elsewhere - which btw, isnt really in contrast to his resignation letter - it just spells out the details.
This issue as its been framed seems to be completely redundant.
And when I think that other comments are based on incomplete information or are unfair, I'm entitled to offer a counterview, am I not?
The facebook post and letter have a different tone. Hell yes! We all behave differently according to who our audience is. That isn't damning evidence of hypocrisy, it is human nature.
Now about the issue of 'conflict of interest' (a serious charge) or 'criminal contempt of court' (a questionable legal provision in a democracy, which really ought to be used if the judges themselves or the Court is abused or attacked, and not if someone merely criticizes the Supreme Court) let the Supreme Court look into it. Let us not be in a hurry to damn the man.
It really is time to move away from these twitter lynchings now, just my two cents.
Well Muslims in general support Death Penalty and an "eye for an eye" type of retributive justice. So the basis of your question is flawed.
Apart from that, being of whatever religion is only descriptive of the person and not definitive. So your question has no hope of tying into the end point you are trying to reach.
So, please desist.
But I'm not sure if it's even possible to say "Muslims in general support Death Penalty", without also mentioning that Christianity's Old Testament contains 'eye for an eye', as does the Jews', and I'm sure there must be some eye-for-an-eye philosophy in some of the Hinduist texts also, surely?
Likewise, I'm sure there is a lot of 'precedent' in each of the religious texts which is for compassion and against eye-for-an-eye, no?
I think "Another opinionated fellow" is right on target -- the resignation letter is banal and bland, but the man's FB post (meant for friends and fans) has a different tone. Human nature? Perhaps, but not a stellar example of scrotal prowess in final reckoning. The jewels shone for a day but then they go dud as hidden facts emerge. Nothing wrong with that. We all cower before authority.
I'd say, just get out of there dude and hand in your notice.
What he wants to do on Facebook is his decision - he doesn't owe the SC an explanation for why he's leaving.
If you're arguing that the SC is not just any other job but somehow a magical place that needs to be treated differently than a normal job, then we're on a different argument...
Anyway, at the risk of by merely acknowledging your question I am validating whatever you were hoping to imply or achieve with it: I don't follow any religion.
If he believe in ending death penalty he need to be brave. Putting it on facebook is sheer cowardice by Mr. Anup