One of the points made by the Anil Ambani group has been that various statements made by ministers in Parliament showed that even the government knew that it did not have unfettered rights under the production sharing contract (PSC). So, for example, Anil Ambani’s lawyers cited to the court the various instances in which the petroleum minister or his deputy told Parliament that they could not direct Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) to supply gas to NTPC since, under the PSC, RIL had full marketing freedom.
While the Supreme Court ruled that the government had unfettered freedom, the issue of what the government told Parliament had been dealt with in the judgment by Justice Sudershan Reddy under the heading: “The silence and the noise of various government officials”. Justice Reddy cites Anil Ambani counsel’s argument and says, “The short answer to that in the context of this case is: it does not matter. At best, they may suggest that the ministers concerned may need better advisors from the permanent machinery.” He then goes on to say, “The answers, at the most, may reflect the opinion of an individual minister and they would have no bearing on the interpretations to be placed by the courts.” In short, Parliament replies may be good enough for journalists, they’re not good enough for courts.
