New Delhi:
Justice JS Verma, former Chief Justice of India, who headed the first commission on the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, speaks candidly about many issues concerning the judiciary. Speaking on NDTV's Your Call, Justice Verma talks about his concern about the delay in verdicts for the Gujarat riot cases. He also talks about the role of the judiciary and his concern that in recent times the judiciary could be over-reaching its ambit.
Here's the full transcript of the interview:
NDTV: Justice Verma coincidentally this week brought back memories of an event in which you have played an important role in the aftermath. That's the role as a Chairman of the Human Rights Commission when you actually visited Gujarat, and your report I think brought up unbiased views for many of what was happening there. When you see nine years later what is currently happening, the Supreme Court verdict that was being interpreted by some as a vindication, as the passing of some
agnipariksha, what would you like to tell people today?
Justice Verma: Well I think this confusion is absolutely unwarranted. And the mere fact that the matter is still not finally resolved and the perpetrators of human rights violations are still unpunished. That's something that disturbs me as it would disturb every reasonable person in our country.
NDTV: Do you think the delay has been unconscionable?
Justice Verma: Well, I think it shouldn't have been there. I would like to put it as it shouldn't have been there, and the delaying tactics shouldn't have succeeded
NDTV: I have a question for you from someone who is involved in the case, the son of Ehsaan Jafri who was killed in Gulbargh, Tanvir Jafri who wants to ask you the question
Jafri's son: For victims and their families it is a lonely battle. What relief Supreme Court can provide for victims of mass violence in the interest of the justice?
NDTV: There is always a danger when you move against the Chief Minister and elected Chief Minister of the state, especially in Gujarat where Modi has won three successive elections. How do you balance that worry? We have seen the cases when an affidavit was filed, where collusion was alleged between the prosecution and the defence in the Gujarat riot cases. What would you say, sir, as a former chief justice?
Justice Verma: I think in this case I should not express my opinion about that and leave it to the Supreme Court to decide. But if there is a reasonable doubt that the trial will not proceed as expeditiously as possible, and that there would be obstacles, then certainly the cases must be transferred out. And I would be happy if they are transferred out.
NDTV: Well I think that is a significant statement. Someone we interviewed a short while ago told me that when you talk about the Supreme Court, politicians are worried about the people's court, and we have said, that in many ways what happened in Gujarat may well have been obliterated if the people involved had not come forward. Narendra Modi has won election after election after election. Now not as a judicial person but as a former chairman of the NHRC what would you say?
Justice Verma: I will tell you. I was in NHRC when probably the first elections were won after this communal violence and a group of foreigners from all walks of life, they came and they said that 'see, despite this, see what has happened.' My answer was simple. I said, what happened in Gujarat alone does not depict what will happen in whole of India. And I said, 'Gujarat is a part of India but not the whole of India. And you know what happened in 2004, the general impression is that 2004 Parliament, elections were largely influenced you see, and the change was largely influenced at the Centre because of Gujarat.'
NDTV: You met the then Chief Minister of the time. What was that meeting like sir?
Justice Verma: It was certainly not pleasant for him that's what I can say. I don't want to divulge what I said. I did say everything very bluntly. And not only that you see, and of course he promised to make all amends because according to me one principle alone is sufficient. You see, in this connection. The question is not to prove active conspiracy or complicity or involvement. We laid down in those orders, which I have mentioned 1st April, 31st May. The mere fact that there is violation on a large scale, which encourages violation of human rights within the territory of the state, within the jurisdiction of the state, the state is liable for that, because the duty of the state is not merely punish for the violations after they occur, but to prevent the happening of these violations. And it is no answer for the state, which is responsible for governance, to say that this was not done by the state players or the state agents. The duty is to prevent; the duty of the state is to see that no one among the jurisdiction by any act or omission commits a violation of human rights. That in clear terms, we have laid down as an emerging principle of human rights, on the basis of which we have rejected the defence, which we had given notice to the state government and also the union government. The state government gave explanation, that the mere fact that there was a large extent of human rights, which you failed to protect, active complicity need not to be proved. You are liable, and therefore we held them accountable and I am very clear that that is sufficient to hold accountable.
NDTV: Justice Verma, moving to your role of course as former Chief Justice as well and it's interesting that how many of your judgments have been used today in courts as new situations arise. I have someone else who has some questions to ask you. One of the brightest legal minds of the country, and now a leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Mr Jaitley, we thank you for joining us tonight. I know that you wrote that strong article about your views after the Supreme Court verdict on the Salwa Judam case, and you have made this point earlier of judicial overreach. What would you like to say on that today with Justice Verma in the studio?
Arun Jaitley: The first thing is about some of the recent judgments. I have found that the rationale being given in the judgments, including the one that Sonia referred to, including this Black Money judgment, doesn't seem to be enforceable legal rights. Somewhere there is an ideological framework. Now getting into this ideological course, and obviously ideologies are not enforceable by the judgments in the courts and the judges getting into this area is not going to be a very apt position to take. And therefore I would like to know from Justice Verma what his views on this issue are? Additionally I would like to know, the in-house mechanisms for judicial accountability obviously have not succeeded because the kind of information, whispers and the rumours we are hearing are extremely disturbing. Therefore, is it not time that we come up with an alternate mechanism such as the National Judicial Commission which has been suggested for many years?
Justice Verma: Both questions are very important and I am very glad that Arun has said this because he is very much involved with these things. I have always said and I am also not very happy with some of the things, and I would say, with due respect, in my view they have rightly been called a judicial overreach. The judicial intervention in any matter must be based on either an existing jurisdiction principle or a newly evolved one. Then only it is legitimate judicial intervention. I think Arun is right in saying that some recent judicial interventions can be called over reached. In the
hawala case also, there was a repeated request constituting the SIT chaired and headed by a retired SC judge. I said it was a statutory function and we judges are not trained to investigate. Even in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination matter, when I was heading a commission, I refused to permit expansion of the terms, to include conspiracy. And everyone knows Justice Jain took it up and well attended. So now that would, according to me, be judicial overreach. All you can do is compel the concerned public authority to perform its statutory duty by the process of monitoring till the work is over.
NDTV: But as we know that the monitoring is going on in the 2G Case, and the trial case has actually begun. Most people today in India seem to welcome judicial overreach. Do you think it's a fair process or the judges are being influenced by the public mood?
Justice Verma: No, I would not get influenced and I would not like that anyone does...The whole thing is we are not to be influenced by what is the battle cry at the moment. After all there is a judicial process. The Supreme Court doesn't go into it. The trial court is also a part of the regular judicial process. And if it commits an error, the Superior Court can correct it.
NDTV: First I just want to ask Arun Jaitley himself that I know you have said many times how much you respect Justice Verma, but Gujarat is one issue BJP and he have been on different sides. So what would you say on that, Mr Jaitley?
Arun Jaitley: I can quite understand the NHRC will be concerned and will investigate wherever there are grievances of any human rights violation. That's a part of the safeguard mechanism, which he has. And I am sure that he was performing his duty in that regard.
NDTV: It's a diplomatic answer then.
Justice Verma: You see, as a matter of fact, when no one thinks alike, no one thinks much. I mean that's democracy. Well he has been very kind and very respectful Sonia. The other question is also pertinent because that also incidentally is my judgment. I wrote the opinion for the majority, but the way the working of that judgment has been done for several years now, I have also said it, that time has come to ensure that no veto power either in Prime Minister or in Chief Justice of India. So my advice is that there should be a National Judicial Commission chaired by the Vice-President of India.
NDTV: So the current issue is that Anna Hazare's team has rejected the Standing Committee's version of the Bill of Judiciary and Accountability. The judiciary has to be under Lokpal that is their demand is returned to the table.
Justice Verma: Well, I wish you have not asked me this but since you have, let me just say what already I have said. Now it's like this. You can't replace the entire governance of the country by just one Lokpal. And where are you going to get that person who will be doing something, which no one has, the entire country has not been able to do? No one says, I mean, and I certainly would not be that person to say that the judges are not accountable. I go a step further. Judges are to be held accountable by a yardstick, much stricter than the one that we judges have applied to the others. But for everyone you see there is not one size fits all.
NDTV: That's an important thing with judicial independence you said as well, sir, but many have asked that there was a time in the last years when it seemed that things have become really bad, when the rot had reached right to the top and at that time we didn't hear an outcry from the judiciary. We didn't hear an outcry from the judiciary or the judges, from former chief justices, lawyers who would file a petition, would be held up or ask why you are not in contempt of court. Did you feel that was a justified question?
Justice Verma: Well, I think there the media has to be blamed because hardly a, what to say, of a year, hardly a month has passed when I have not spoken about it. And I am not the only one. Some others, others are of course very gentle so they don't speak so bluntly. But I have spoken so bluntly always. And, how many times I have said for example, you see, both, about Chief Justice Sabarwal and Justice Balakrishnan, you see, others have felt the same way.
NDTV: But one is still the head of a constitutional body like National Human Rights Commission, the other one is enjoying his retirement.
Justice Verma: That's what I am saying. So it is not for the judges to do anything else. For us, we can only speak out. So all that is needed to hold them accountable; have them in the Judicial Accountability Bill. I said more than once, that you see the National Human Rights Commission credibility is getting eroded when the Chair itself is being asked uncomfortable questions all the time. Nothing else. He must step down and clear his name. Judges would not protect dishonest judges. If some judges have been punished or asked to leave, its only at the instance of the judges, and since you will say that I have heard so many times, people say, whom I have personally told so many times, they know it and the reason why our judiciary should not be there. All members of Team Anna were there in the round table on 24th July, where I said why Article 50, separate judiciary, other provisions? In the Parliament and State legislatures you can't even discuss the conduct of a judge except on the motion for removal. Separate treatment for the high judiciary etc.
NDTV: I think many of the Indian lawyers have appeared before you and one of them joins me now. Soli Sorabjee joins me, and Mr Sorabjee, Justice Verma is in the studio. What would you like to say to him sir? I am sure you must have appeared before him many times in court.
Soli Sorabjee: I would like to congratulate him for the self-imposed restrictions of not gaining opinion through plans and not acting as an arbitrator. And, making lots of money thereby...
NDTV: But I just wanted to ask you, as you brought up with Mr Sorabjee and you were on the bench from the days of the Emergency, we have seen an interesting change in views of Justice Bhagwati, so just your views on that. And Mr Sorabjee would you like to say anything on that sir?
Soli Sorabjee: I know we had very difficult times of course. I used to appear in Bombay and then rush to Delhi and I was actually socially acquainted with some people.
Ye to bada risky aadmi hai iske saath baat nahi karna, locally appear
hota hai. But the thing is I think Mr Verma would consider the habeus corpus judgment as one of the most disastrous judgments delivered by the Supreme Court. I think so. And I just can't make anything of that regret of Justice Bhagwati 25 years later. I think it is lamentable.
Justice Verma: As a matter of fact what he has said now is laughable. I am sorry to say that, he is much older and I have respect, well, intellectually he is a great mind no doubt about it. But then if he has started apologizing, I think he'd better apologize for few more judgments. And incidentally all of them happened to be mine, which later on, in a new court for example, you say today there is so much of talk about criminalizing politics and that's why there must be disqualification of persons who have been convicted. In 1980, I set aside the election and disqualified Shri Chopra who was a prominent member of the Union Cabinet. Bhagwathi
saab promptly overruled me here as he did in the habeas corpus...my view followed by AP Sen, in the habeas corpus case. Then Arjun Singh lost his chief ministership about that liquor case. Nandlal Jaiswal that also, I mean, it's not that. There is no point in saying it now when it makes no sense. I can understand Justice Chandrachudh, while he was still in office, he had the courage. When he had come to Madhya Pradesh, the judge then, he had publically said that I was not only wrong, but I took this view in the habeas corpus case because I was afraid. Well, I think that is something one can understand, but saying now I don't know, I don't know what really, is their motive behind this belated admission. I don't know.
NDTV: I have some surprise guests who would ask you on that. I have your daughter Shubra. Shubra go ahead with your question for Justice Verma.
Shubra: I just want to ask him supposedly, like it happens in films, if he gets to take decisions, which will change some things in the country, where would he want to start? And if, what would he want to change about himself besides wanting to play Holi?
NDTV: There...this is someone who knows you best asking you the question. It's not about the films that you have actually changed. As a Chief Justice you have actually changed the country.
Justice Verma: As a matter of fact I will answer the second question first. What I would like to change in myself is my temper and become less obnoxious. Of course I have been improving over the years, and now, I am not as bad now as I used to be. But I am not good enough. Now so far as change is concerned, if only one thing could be done, if somehow I could do it well, and I was given the opportunity to do only one thing, then I would ensure that the top man in every institution is a person with no past to hide, so that he can't be blackmailed by anyone and he is totally transparent. And he is not looking for a future so that there is no allurement because of which he can, in case there is some latent infirmity or weakness. And that, according to me, is impeccable integrity, which is needed today. So if he does that, and my experience has shown that whenever a top man has been like that, half of the things have already automatically been taken care of. And the other half you see, they can always be handled.
NDTV: Shubra just want to ask you what was it like growing up as a daughter of a such a tough judge? Was he as tough at home also and he had that strict rule of conduct, not just for himself, but even for the daughter of the judge as well?
Shubra: I think he lived by those things. So there was no lecture or anything but he just lived the way he believed in. There was no other way that we knew of. It was tough living like that but then there was no other way that we could have lived with...
Justice Verma: Just one thing I would like to say. I will take this opportunity to thank my family, wife and my children. You see I didn't have to say that. They denied themselves so many things they could have got, my children particularly. I mean just to say this I wouldn't know most of the things. But my daughters, the two children that I have, I'd come to know much later that they have refused in their career many things, just because they suspected that may be this offer for betterment of their career, is being given by someone who may have some interest somewhere. So, I am sure I couldn't have done all what people think I have done, but for this active support. I am really very thankful to them.
NDTV: Shubra thank you so much. Well I think the people of India are glad that he pushed into law. Well we will finally end the show but we can't without some young lawyers asking you some questions. Let's just see what they have to say.
Lawyer: Sir you have served the Supreme Court of India for many years. Which is that one case which gave you many sleepless nights?
Justice Verma: Well I don't think that I had a single sleepless night because you see, once I reached a decision, which by God's grace, usually I would not take long to reach a decision, I thought as much as it was necessary, and well, I was never troubled what would be the outcome.
NDTV: One case that made you proud?
Justice Verma: Well it's very difficult to say. But then you see a case that, as you rightly said sometime back, that no one was punished in that
hawala case. But then that is something that instilled fear in the minds of the people to the highest level.
NDTV: Sir, it's amazing how... sir, well interviewing you has been a privilege and I think revisiting many of your judgments and what we are seeing around us today and how that legacy actually continues. Thank you so much Justice Verma for joining me tonight.
Justice Verma: Thank you.