Renaming of Library II: Singhvi calls it “crass commercialisation”, PH Parekh says “enough is enough”

In December 2008, the library known as “Library No. II” in the Supreme Court of India was renamed as Dr. LM Singhvi library in honor of the late Senior Advocate, and BJP member LM Singhvi. This was done on the behest of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), led by SCBA president and Senior Advocate, PH Parekh. In fact, late Dr. Singhvi was himself the president of the SCBA on five occasions. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, son of Dr. LM Singhvi, donated a sum of Rs. 20 lacs for the library that year. .However, in the last few years it would appear that the relationship between the SCBA and the Singhvis has changed for the worse. In April, 2014 the SCBA asked AM Singhvi for a further sum of Rs. 20 lacs to renovate the library. According to the SCBA resolution dated July 3, 2014, Singhvi stipulated four conditions for donating this amount..The SCBA objected to the conditions put forth by Singhvi in return for renovating Library No. II and proceeded to pass a resolution to the effect that Library No. II of the Supreme Court will no longer be described as Dr. LM Singhvi library. It has now been confirmed that the Library would be named after Awadh Behari Rohatgi, father of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi..A day after the controversy erupted, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi has responded to the allegations..Bar & Bench spoke to Dr. Singhvi and SCBA President PH Parekh. This is what they had to say..Abhishek Manu Singhvi.According to Singhvi, the Bar decided to dedicate Library II in the name of Dr. LM Singhvi by a resolution dated December 11, 2008..“In 2008 and 2009 they took Rs. 20 lacs from me. I gave it with happiness for the service of the Bar. I had also asked them to keep the money locked in corpus, so that it is not squandered for dinners and lunches. It was not done. Till 2014, nothing happened.”.After six years, when a demand was made “out of the blue” for a further sum of Rs. 20 lacs, Singhvi says that he, “objected on principle”..“I objected purely on principle since there was no such condition that there would be a periodic demand. In 2014, it is mystifying that for some pre decided reason, either out of bias or animus, it was decided to make a further demand of Rs. 20 lacs. I conveyed in writing that despite the valid objection on principle, I will pay Rs. 20 lacs with happiness for the service of the Bar but on a single condition that no further demands be made. It has been falsely told that I stipulated four conditions.”.When asked about the decision of the SCBA Executive Committee to rename the library, Singhvi says,.“Is this not crass commercialisation and periodic auctioning and re auctioning? Is it fair? It is to be deprecated; it is high-handed conduct. Whoever has got the name now runs the risk of it being changed again tomorrow. This is not the noble tradition of the noble Bar.”.PH Parekh.According to Parekh, the decision to name the Library II after Dr. LM Singhvi was not taken by the Bar suo moto but was done on a written request by Singhvi. Regarding the claim by Singhvi that he stipulated just one condition and not four, Parekh says that,.“Dr. Singhvi himself has admitted in his letter that three conditions were true and that one was wrongly reproduced by me. So his claim that he proposed only one condition is totally false from his own written document. We had also given him an option to renovate the library instead of paying Rs. 20 lacs. His daily income is more than Rs. 20 lacs. If it was a lawyer who did not have money, we would not have asked for a single penny. It is when he set out those four conditions that we decided that enough was enough.”.Regarding the fact that there was no condition as per the 2008 SCBA Resolution that Singhvi was obligated to donate periodically, Parekh says that,.“I told him that once renovation is done, no renovation would be required for three to four years. However, I said that I cannot promise that a future Executive Committee will not ask for donation in the future. They may or may not ask, that depends on the Executive Committee. Here is a man, who is minting money – we are happy that he is minting money – if he puts such conditions, it is not acceptable and is humiliating.”.Parekh also confirmed that the SCBA has now agreed to name the library after Awadh Behari Rohatgi and that Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi has donated Rs. 25 lacs towards the library. When asked whether that would send a message that the names of libraries can be bought by paying money, Parekh says:.“It is not a question of payment but about the conditions he imposed. He said that he will pay Rs. 20 lacs but he will dictate the terms. We felt very hurt by that and did not like it. By imposing a condition that an inaugural ceremony should be held, he was trying to show his money power. So, the point is that we did not like the way in which he troubled us for a couple of months before agreeing to pay and then imposing those conditions.”“SCBA requests for contribution only to members of the SCBA and that is because we do not like to charge huge subscription for the services we render to our members as junior lawyers and some other lawyers hardly earn enough to pay higher subscription. We, therefore, expect Senior Advocates who are minting money to contribute for the benefit of their struggling sisters and brothers in the Bar.”.Parekh also reveals an interesting fact when he says that,.“An eminent senior counsel paid the full money for the Additional Consultation room but he paid it on the condition that it should not be disclosed to anyone. So we have people like that too.”