New Delhi, March 17
A Bench of the Supreme Court today clarified that there was no pressure on its presiding Judge, Mr Justice S. N. Variava, for changing the Special Judge at Patna holding trial in the fodder scam and disproportionate assets cases against Union Minister of Railways Laloo Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi, respectively.
The Bench comprising Mr Justice
S.N. Variava, Mr Justice A.R. Lakshmanan and Mr Justice S. H. Kapadia, in a clarification order read out in the court today, said the "original inference" of the presiding Judge (Mr Justice Variava) about the "attempted influence was wrong".
The Supreme Court is seized of a petition seeking cancellation of the bail of Laloo Prasad Yadav and his wife Rabri Devi in the fodder scam and disproportionate assets (DA) cases, respectively, alleging interference in the judicial process,
Referring to the large-scale coverage of his observation by the media and the "consequent controversy", Mr Justice Variava, reading out the clarification order, said "it has become necessary for this court to clarify that it was not mentioned or implied by me that pressure had been brought on me to have the Special Judge changed. There has been no such pressure."
"It is to be clarified further that no one from the (Patna) High Court had enquired of me. The person concerned has since clarified to me that the enquiry was just an academic inquiry. I am satisfied that the explanation is correct and my original inference that there was an attempt to influence me was wrong," Mr Justice Variava said.
The order said, during the March 15 hearing, the statement made by the court was that "it had been indirectly enquired whether the High Court could transfer the Special Judge trying the case and
the reply (of the Bench) had been that the High Court could do what it wants and we would do what we think to be necessary."It said at this stage the counsel for the petitioner (JD(U) leader Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' had "interjected that the pressure was being brought on Judges".
The court further said today's order of clarification was issued to "clear the misunderstanding that had arisen" in the matter.
Mr Lalan had sought cancellation of the bail of Laloo Prasad and Rabri Devi for alleged interference in the trial court proceedings.
The petitioner had alleged that the trial proceedings were interfered with as the CBI's Senior Public Prosecutor, Mr L. R Ansari, was changed midway and former Delhi Police Legal Advisor Oma Shankar Mishra with relatively "very little experience" in prosecution matters was appointed in his place after the UPA Government had come to power.
The petitioner had also raised the issue of quick disposal of the income tax violation case against Laloo Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in June last year after Laloo became the Union Minister.
The petitioner's counsel Mukul Rohtagi had earlier told the court that there was a move to shift the Special Judge to the family court.
The apex court, on February 22, had sought entire records of the CBI to examine the orders "changing" the prosecutor and that of the ITAT proceedings in the income tax case against Laloo Prasad Yadav and Rabri Devi.
