New Delhi:
It is judge versus judge now in a controversy swirling on the peripheries of the 2G scam.
The former Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan has reacted a day after his statement about A Raja was effectively challenged by a sitting Supreme Court judge. He has now dragged in Law Minister Veerappa Moily in the controversy.
The case pertains to a lawyer who tried to allegedly get Raja to speak, and influence a Madras High Court judge.
On Wednesday, in the face of widespread doubts, Justice KG Balakrishnan released a detailed statement:
In the wake of reporting in some sections of media recently, it appears that an attempt is being made to create a wedge between the high institutions of judiciary and attach motives over the allegations of a union Minister having spoken to a judge to influence his judicial function, which is unfortunate. I am issuing this statement only with the hope that the facts will not be twisted and henceforth no motives will be attached to the judiciary.
I have seen the Press Release by Justice H.L. Gokhale, Judge of the Supreme Court of India. I have not said that the judge had sent an incorrect or false report to me regarding the alleged incident or suppressed any facts. I only stated that in the report given to me, no mention was made of any Minister having spoken to the judge of the Madras High Court. In the report also no name of any Minister was mentioned.
From the media reports subsequent to the press release by Justice Gokhale, it appears that I suppressed certain facts to save somebody. I never wanted to publish any confidential letter received by me in my capacity as Chief Justice of India. But as the contents of the letter by the Chief Justice of India to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, and also the letters written by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court to CJI have already been made public through that Press Release, with much reluctance I am constrained to quote from my personal file, the full text of the report dated 08th August, 2009, given by the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court to me so that the matter be clarified.
Quote : -
"Respected My Lord,
I have received your Lordship's letter dated 8th August 2009 forwarding a copy of the memorandum by a number of Members of the Parliament to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. It is concerning the alleged statement made by Mr. Justice R. Reghupathi in open Court, and Your Lordship has asked me to give my views/comments relating to the issue raised in the said memorandum. The first paragraph of the memorandum states that the controversy arose when a Chennai High Court Judge made a statement in the open Court that a Union Minister had telephoned him in a matter concerning a mark sheet forgery case with the recommendation that the accused should be given bail. This statement is contrary to what the Hon'ble Judge has stated in paragraph 3 of his letter dated 2nd July 2009 which I have forwarded to Your Lordship as permitted by the learned Judge. As per that letter the learned Judge has not made any such statement in the Court. In that paragraph the learned Judge has narrated the background to explain what he has stated in the Court, and thereafter he has stated "I observed that a counsel, who made an attempt to exert influence on the Court by using the name of a cabinet Minister, cannot be allowed to succeed in snatching an order in his favour by advancing threat". The learned Judge has, thereafter, removed the matter from his Court.
2. The second paragraph of the Memorandum states as follows:
"According to reports, the Judge has subsequently 'clarified' that the Minister had not spoken to him directly but that the lawyer appearing in the case on behalf of the accused had come to his chamber and informed him that the Union Minister would like to speak to him and even dialed the number to facilitate the conversation."
The second paragraph of the letter of Honourable Mr. Justice Reghupathi clarifies the fact in this behalf, viz, that the Minister had not spoken to him although the advocate wanted him to talk to the Minister, and the learned Judge had not entertained the request.
3. Thereafter, paragraph 3 of the memorandum states that 'assuming this clarification to be correct, it is still an attempt to interfere in the judicial process by the said Minister. If, on the other hand, the lawyer was bluffing, it calls for the most severe action against him". This paragraph records certain questions which according to the memorandum arise out of this incident. Now, as can be seen from the letter of the learned Judge, he has clearly stated that the Minister did not speak to him. However, as far as the Advocate is concerned, the learned Judge has, in clear terms, stated that the Advocate did try to exert pressure on him. With respect to the conduct of the said advocate, two writ petitions are pending before another Bench of this High Court. A writ petition filed in Public Interest dated 2nd July 2009 seeking action against the Minister has been dismissed on 20.07.2009 as not pressed.
This is for Your Lordship's consideration,
With kind regards," Unquote
I am certain that in the report received from the Chief Justice of Madras High Court, no name of the Union Minister was mentioned, and that there was no case that any minister himself made telephonic talk with the Judge or threatened or influenced him. Hence, no action could have been taken based on that report of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
I maintain that I did not receive any letter from Justice Reghupathi addressed to me, and it is not the practice also to have correspondence with the judges, but always seek report from the concerned Chief Justice of the High Court, in case any issue brought to the notice of the CJI warrants so, which I did in this case. In matters of this nature, the Chief Justice of India can only go by the conclusive report of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned, and that alone could be relied and acted upon. And in this issue, as per the report of the Chief Justice Madras High Court, there was no cogent ground made out for a case against any Union Minister.
I would reiterate that in any case if the concerned Judge felt that anybody, be it a Union Minister, tried to influence his judicial function, he could have proceeded against him, without seeking any direction from the CJI or the Chief Justice of High Court, under the contempt of the Court. In fact, the case on a Writ Petition against the concerned advocate in the Madras High Court is based on that ground only, which resulted in his suspension from the Bar Council of Madras and Pondicherry and the matter is still sub-judice.
All these matters were brought to the notice of the Union Law Minister on the 18th August, 2009, in response to his letter to me drawing reference to the memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister by the MPs of different political parties. There was no question of suppressing the report of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court.