|
|
New twist to Justice Balakrishnan’s statement V. Eshwar Anand/TNS Chandigarh, December 16 In a new twist, Union Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily has said on Thursday that former Chief Justice of India and National Human Rights Commission Chairperson Justice K.G. Balakrishnan has not named any Union Minister in the communication sent to him regarding the controversy over Justice Reghupati’s complaint. Justice Balakrishnan, in a statement on Wednesday, said that he had brought the matter to the notice of Moily on August 18, 2009. He said that, in his letter, he had provided all the details of the case to the Law Minister. The issue has been engaging the nation’s attention for quite some time. On July 2, 2009, Justice Reghupati had complained to the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court Justice H.L. Gokhale, currently a Supreme Court Judge, that A. Raja had tried to “influence” him to grant anticipatory bail to his family friends - S. Kiruba Sridhar (son) and C. Krishnamurthy (father)- in a marks forgery case through an advocate, Mr R.K. Chandramohan. According to Justice Reghupati, when he objected to the counsel seeking for relief for his clients, Chandramohan whipped out his mobile phone, dialled a number and told him that Raja was on the line to speak to him (the judge). Justice Reghupati claims that he refused to take the phone and speak to Chandramohan. Instead, he complained the incident to Justice Gokhale with a copy to Justice Balakrishnan. Though Justice Balakrishnan has been maintaining that Justice Gokhale’s forwarding letter to him did not name any Union Minister, Justice Gokhale, in a statement on December 14, had clarified that Justice Balakrishnan did get Justice Reghupati’s copy of the complaint which clearly named Raja as the Union Minister in the second paragraph. Speaking to this writer over phone on Thursday, Moily said that as Justice Balakrishnan did not name any Union Minister in the case, the government decided to close the case. Giving an account of the incident, the Law Minister said that some members of Parliament had submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister last year. Subsequently, the Prime Minister’s Office had forwarded it to him (Moily). As is the normal practice, Moily had sent the communication to Justice Balakrishnan, the then CJI, for his comments. In his reply, Justice Balakrishnan did not name any Union Minister. Consequently, the government decided to close the case. As the Law Minister has put the record straight, it has given a new twist to the controversy. Justice Balakrishnan ought to allay apprehensions and dispel public misgivings. Unfortunately, when this writer sought his opinion about the Law Minister’s view, his PS, Rishi Pal, said that “Justice Balakrishnan has nothing to say on the matter”. Justice Reghupati was well within his right to complain to Justice Gokhale (and Justice Balakrishnan). But one fails to understand why he failed to haul up Chandramohan and the two persons, believed to be Raja’s relatives, for contempt on the same day of the incident, i.e. on June 12, 2009? Justice Reghupati gives two reasons for not initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against them: One, the issue was “so big” that the person involved, Chandramohan, was the president of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council; and two, some other judge should hear the matter as he had become functus officio (having performed his office). He subsequently passed a judicial order requesting Justice Gokhale to transfer the case to another Bench as also filed a complaint to him with a copy to Justice Balakrishnan.However, these reasons are too weak and unconvincing. Clearly, as it is an important case involving the independence of the judiciary and an attempt by some people to influence a High Court Judge and subvert the criminal justice system, Justice Reghupati should have cracked the whip of contempt promptly and tackled the episode at his level itself instead of taking the long and circuitous route of filing a complaint with Justice Gokhale. Opinions may differ on the constitutional position of the judiciary vis-à-vis the executive in tackling such issues. In principle, High Court judges do not take such matters to the state government. It is said that the Chief Justice of India, after receiving a complaint from the High Court Chief Justice, is expected to forward the matter to the President of India who, in turn, will contact the Prime Minister for appropriate action against the Union Minister concerned. However, it is also said that the judiciary should not interact with the executive to resolve such issues. When the judges do have the power of contempt, there is no need for them to go to the executive. That way, their independence could also be well preserved. Soli J. Sorabjee, noted jurist and constitutional expert, says that the crux of the matter is whether Justice Gokhale’s report sent to Justice Balakrishnan append Justice Reghupati’s letter in which Raja’s name was mentioned as the Union Minister who tried to influence him through an advocate. Let the facts speak for themselves. Sorabjee says that “the curtain should be drawn on the present unsavoury controversy with explanations and counter-explanations which do not redound to the credit of the judiciary”. Dr Subhash C. Kashyap, constitutional expert, says that this is the first time that the country is witnessing a sordid drama involving judges in the higher judiciary. “The slew of statements and counter-statements by judges gives an impression that either a former CJI or a sitting Supreme Court Judge is telling a lie”. Either of the two is not speaking the truth and this does not augur well for a healthy democracy like ours, he says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
