Written by – Shaurya Mahajan
On Saturday, 12 March 2022 the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Azim Hasham Premji & Anr. V. India Awake For Transparency & Ors, lauded the “constructive view” taken by the ex-Wipro Chairman Azim Premji in forgiving R Subramanian, who through his companies had filed more than 70 “misconceived” cases against Mr Premji and his associate.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh allowed the appeals filed by Mr Azim Premji and his wife Ms Yaseem Azim Premji to quash the proceedings before a Bengaluru Magistrate on a criminal complaint filed by “India Awake for Transparency” alleging illegality in the transfer of shares assets to Premji’s trust from his private companies. In December 2020, the Court had stayed the proceedings against Premji.
Earlier the bench had asked Mr Subramanian – who was convicted for contempt of court by the Karnataka High Court only two months ago for filing multiple frivolous cases against Azim Premji on the same cause of action – to tender an unconditional apology for filing cases against the ex-Wipro Chairman and his associates through his companies “India Awake for Transparency” and “Wholesale Trading Services Pvt Ltd”. The Bench also urged Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and S Ganesh to persuade Mr Premji to take a more compassionate view.
Following this, Mr Premji expressed his acceptance of the apology tendered by Mr Subramanian.
Mr Subramanian filed an affidavit accepting the four aspects the Bench had required him to undertake.
Mr Subramanian said that he will file applications before the concerned courts to withdraw the complaints filed against him by Mr Premji and his associates by stating that the complaints “were founded on an incorrect understanding of facts and legal provisions and that accordingly the same should be dismissed as withdrawn”. He agreed to file a compliance report before the Supreme Court within 6 weeks regarding the filing of withdrawal applications.
The Bench also approved the draft of the public apology which Mr Subramanian was required to publish in leading newspapers but with a modification of including the name of two more individuals associated with the Premji firms.
Therefore, in conclusion, the Supreme Court praised and lauded Mr Premji for accepting the apology and pardoning Mr Subramanian.