He relies on technicalities, not on substance: Jaitley
The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday listened in rapt attention to a nearly two-hour defence Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court put up against his impeachment.
As the members assembled at 3 p.m., Chairman Hamid Ansari asked the marshals to bring Justice Sen to the bar of the House. Two crisp sentences from Mr. Ansari — “Is Justice Sen in attendance? Bring him to the bar of the House” — began the first-ever impeachment proceedings before the Rajya Sabha.
Justice Sen's observations were preceded by the mover of the resolution and senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) member, Sitaram Yechury, detailing why the Rajya Sabha, for the first time in its history, decided to impeach a judge.
After Justice Sen presented his defence, Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley made out an equally forceful case for his impeachment, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other senior Ministers listening to both sides. The debate was inconclusive, and will continue on Thursday. It will be followed by voting.
By turns emotional and arguing on the facts of law, Justice Sen contended that he was being made a “sacrificial lamb” to cleanse the judiciary and said he had “exhausted my remedies in accordance with law. I have come here to seek justice. If you impeach me, it will be the gravest of injustice done ever. Kindly apply your mind before deciding on the judgment, as it is a question of my life.”
Mr. Yechury's motion was supported by Mr. Jaitley, with both contending that the judge should be removed for misappropriating money when he was the Receiver of the Calcutta High Court and for misrepresenting facts about the misuse of the money.
Justice Sen said: “The decision to hold me guilty was taken long time back” and without naming anyone, took potshots at the former Supreme Court Chief Justice, K.G. Balakrishanan, who had sought a deeper probe against the judge in a letter to the Prime Minister.
He also argued that his conduct as a judge was never under examination. The allegations of misappropriation against him were in his capacity as Receiver of the High Court and not as a judge.
Moving two motions, Mr. Yechury said he was doing so with a “deep sense of anguish and the move was not against the judiciary, which we hold in high esteem, but against a judge for his misbehaviour.”
If Justice Sen appeared to have garnered sympathy among journalists who had packed the press gallery, this was offset when Mr. Jaitley took on the judge for relying on technicalities rather than substance.
Pressing his point, the noted lawyer pointed out that not once did the judge, then an advocate, file the return of accounts for the money he had collected. He usurped the money deposited in a bank and issued several cheques to individuals besides withdrawing money against several self-cheques. Money received from another liquidated company was also withdrawn, and when the time came to repay it, he made good the shortfall by transferring money from the first account.
When a judge passed strictures, Justice Sen did not dispute them. A few twists and turns later, the Chief Justice of India appointed a three-member probe panel, which agreed with the single judge that Justice Sen's defence was inadequate. Justice Sen turned down the CJI's request to resign, leading to 58 MPs moving a motion for his removal. A Rajya Sabha inquiry committee also concluded that he was guilty of “proven misconduct.”
“A judge has to lead by example. A judge cannot rely on technicalities and try to escape the rigours of law. Litigants cannot be judged by a judge who himself is stigmatised. The defence of Justice Sen has thus to be rejected,” Mr. Jaitley said.
Keywords: Justice Soumitra Sen, impeachment proceedings, Rajya Sabha
What's important is whether Justice Sen is guilty of the allegations or not. Technicalities are for commons not for nobles. Let the guilty be punished according to the law of the land.
Salutations to 189 members of the upper house of india's parliament. You have united beyond political considerations and ideologies. Your decision Marks an important milestone in the democratic process in India and the future historian will pay eloquent tributes to the statesmanship shown by you. A am confident that those who opposed the motion will join hands with you, when national issues arise for consideration in the rajyasabha in future. I would also like to offer bouquets to all the hon' ble speakers who participated in the debate. All of them have out beaten Edmund Burke in their presentation of their view points to facilitate unity amongst all members.
Unless and until corruption in the higher judiciary is totally eradicated we cannnot totally eradicate corruption as we have seen how they go scot free in the court of law.hence it is neceerary that higher juduciary also must be brought under lokpal as impeachment is not only time consuming but also next to impossible.poor man cannot even dream of any such action.
With due regards to the credentials and integrity of Hon'ble Justice Mr. Sen I present the following. Under our Constitution a High Court Judge is appointed by the President, not de nova but, from a list of persons furnished by the Central Govt. which was duly considered and processed at various levels viz: the State Govt., the Chief Justice of the State, Central Law Ministry, the Chief Justice of India etc. apart from the part played by the Vigilance and Intelligence wings of the State and Centre. The allegation against Justice Mr. Sen is said to be not on his Judicial act but for the act as a Receiver during late 90s ie. before his appointment as Judge. Whether there is a proven allegation or not a person under a controversy or clouds stands unqualified ad initio. Then how was he recommended. It is ironical to see Justice Mr. Sen standing on the firing line of Mr. Yechury and Mr. Jaitley whose parties were in power at Kolkatta and Delhi during his appointment to the High Court.
Impeachment is a very very serious matter. I too have attentively heard the deposition of Mr.Sen in front of august Rajyasabha on TV. God alone knows the truth. To avoid any error being committed by parliamentarians and bringing disgrace to democracy itself, it is appropriate to take the advise of noble jurists like Krishna Iyer and Srikrishna and CJI Shri. Kapadia so that the decision is nearer to God's decision.
This is the way that in a civilized society in a Democracy the process to remove a Judge is done. Not by some group of Super persons with Super Powers.
If Justice Sen's defence is accepted or if the impeachment motion fails due to lack of majority, it will be a travesty of justice of the worst kind. The judiciary is the last remaining bastion of justice in which the citizens of this country have faith. If even among the judiciary there are corrupt people who escape punishment by virtue of technicalities, the people will have nothing to have faith in. Such a crisis of faith is not a welcome state of affairs. All technicalities notwithstanding, he is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a high court judge - he must go.
And who among that august gathering is qualified to sit in judgement against someone, whose defence is based on technicalities? This is a lynching of a snivelling coward, by a mob of utter criminals.
This has to be lauded - going by the report. The Rajya Sabha us actaully doing the job it should be doing with a sense of responsibility and making the process work with the spirit of the Indian republic. One can only hope that it brings out the best sense of governance which are law makers absolutely need to learn. Best wishes to all.
He was also a judge at the time when he was a receiver and hence there would be more responsibility on him to act prudentially. What the committee said is more appropriate.
Please Email the Editor