No mention of Raja in Gokhale's report: Balakrishnan
The former Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, was aware of the incident involving advocate R.K. Chandramohan who used the name of the former Union Minister, A. Raja, in an alleged attempt to influence Justice R. Regupathi, former Judge of the Madras High Court, in a criminal case, asserted Supreme Court Justice H.L. Gokhale here on Tuesday.
Justice Gokhale, who was the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court at that time, disputed the statement of Justice Balakrishnan, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission, that there was no occasion for him to recommend any further action in the matter since there was no mention of the name of the then Cabinet Minister, Raja, in the report sent by the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court.
Pointing to Justice Balakrishnan's statement that he did not receive any letter directly from Justice Regupathi in this behalf, Justice Gokhale said: “The reported statement of the former CJI gives an erroneous impression about my role in the matter. Hence, it became necessary for me to verify the facts from the record with the CJI's office.”
In a detailed press note, Justice Gokhale said he had forwarded to the former CJI a copy of Justice Regupathi's letter dated July 2, 2009 by a letter dated July 5, 2009. The former CJI had in fact acknowledged the same in his subsequent letter dated August 8, 2009 as follows: vide letter dated July 5, 2009, you have forwarded to me a detailed letter/report July 2, 2009 of Justice Regupathi explaining the actual state of affairs concerning the alleged misconduct of a Union Minister of the Government of India reported in the media.”
However, speaking to The Hindu, Justice Balakrishnan said: “What I had stated is that I only received a copy of the letter sent by Justice Regupathi to the [then] High Court Chief Justice Gokhale. I received a report from Justice Gokhale and in that report there was no mention of the name of the Minister Raja, though there was reference to a Cabinet Minister. I cannot take action on the basis of a letter written by a High Court Judge to the High Court Chief Justice. I need a concrete report for me to take action.”
Justice Gokhale said: “The former CJI informed me by that letter that he had received a copy of the memorandum concerning the above incident, addressed by a large number of Members of Parliament to the Prime Minister. A copy thereof was enclosed to seek my views/comments on the issues raised therein. I replied to this letter on August 11, 2009.”
On the former CJI's statement that there was no mention of the name of any Union Minister in the report sent by him, Justice Gokhale said: “I may point out that Justice Regupathi's letter was already with him [former CJI] and in the second paragraph thereof Justice Regupathi had specifically mentioned the name of Minister Raja. I had no personal knowledge about the incident, and the observations in my reply were in conformity with the contents of Justice Regupathi's letter.”
He quoted the relevant portion of Justice Regupathi's letter which said that Mr. Chandramohan urged him to favourably consider the bail plea of a father and son, accused in a murder case, as they were family friends of Mr. Raja.
Justice Gokhale further said: “I drew the attention of the former CJI to a sentence in Justice Regupathi's letter regarding the statement he made in the court: 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. In this letter, I also informed the former CJI about the petitions filed in the Madras High Court concerning this incident. The continuity of the correspondence clearly shows that the incident related to advocate Chandramohan and Minister Raja had been brought to the notice of the former CJI.”
Keywords: A. Raja, Madras High Court judge incident
Since the minister did not speak to Regupathi, there can not be any case against him. Whats the proof that he was on phone when Chandramohan claimed he was. Although I am 100% sure he was, there is no proof that he was. To me it seems all three judges are displaying fair amount of restraint and poise. Chandramohan is the only one against whom some action can be taken and in deed, it was taken.
It is unfortunate and disgusting to know that even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is part of the rotten system we have been experiencing in the country. These justices from the Madras High Court as well as the CJI are passing the buck around with &'mumbo-jumbo' talk.
We had been thinking that the Judiciary in the country is above board and impartial....but the tangle between the then CJI and CJ of Madras High court has brought it to light that the Judiciary also is NOT overboard but clouded.It has become a mystery.THE CJ of Madras High court merely forwards a letter to CJI and the CJI also follows suit throwing the letter to dustbin citing technicalities and saying that no recommendations received from High court for taking any action on such an important letter from a responsible serving Highcourt Judge.
Sad day indeed. Ex CJI resorts to the language used by bureaucrats and politicians who have something to hide. I am certain God must be tired of trying to save this country from all and sundry - so instead - let me thank God for letting such judges open their mouths (even when not needed) so that people can know for themselves who/what types dispense justice.
All these days in the case of A. Raja of 2 G spectrum fame, the media only were confusing the people, but now the fourth pillar of Democracy that is the judiciary is confusing us by their battle of words. Who will tell us the truth behind these letters?
I think the former CJI is hair-splitting when he says that he could not take any action on the Madras CJ's "report" since it did not refer to any minister by name. He conveniently does not refer to the Madras judge's letter forwarded by the Madras CJ's "report". This is true, but the truth is dressed to hide the facts.
The battle of words among the three judges has certainly dealt a body blow to the image of the judiciary. However, it has raised the following questions in the minds of the citizens: - 1. Why the Supreme Court has not taken any action against the ex-telecom minister Mr.A.Raja? Also, the Madras High Court did not take/recommend any action against the ex-telecom minister? 2. Should the litigants, also enjoy the same amount of freedom to raise their voice against judicial excesses, if the media can be used by judges to contracdict each other? This assumes more significance after the Supreme Court saying again that Allahabad High Court is rotten. 3.Can the judiciary take shelter behind the veil of judicial independence only to hide its workings from the glare of the public, especially the litigants? 4. Whenever it suits judges, the contents of court corrrespondence is disclosed in the media - why? 5. Are contempt proceedings reserved only for those who raise their voice on the functioning of courts? Is this not abuse of the blanket power on contempt? Why cannot the Supreme Court recommend to the government to abolish the Contempt of Courts Act, as its abolition will herald a new era in the transparency in the working of courts.
Justice Regupathi, while revealing that a Union Minister tried to influence him, failed to reveal the name of the Union Minister to the press or the people. It is the case with the letter stated to be sent to the then Chief Justice of India Justice K.Balakrishnan who denies any mention of the name of A.Raja, former Cabinet Minister. Now, the then Chief Justice of Madras High court has stated that he has mentioned the name of Raja in his letter sent to the then CJI. These instances make it clear that everyone is trying to save their skin but not divulging the facts to the people. On an application made by me to the Madras High Court, the Court Registry has informed that no such letter stated to have been sent by the then CJ of Madras High Court to the CJI is available with the Court registry. Ever governmental functionary should understand the basic fact that they are working for the welfare of the people and their business should be open to the public. Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe, said Abraham Lincoln. The statement made by Justice Regupathi that a Union minister attempted to influence him in a case is not a private one. It needs to be openly discussed and any record/document/letters connected with the issued should be divulged to the public. Only such revelations and not secrecies will uphold the dignity of judiciary.
Three Judges are passing on the buck to one another, without offering initiative to be taken, on mere technicalities, when justice delivery system is attempted for interference from political elements misusing the executive administrative functions. Such passive action will embolden interference in independent judiciary. It is not prudent to expect FIR will be filed unless someone gives direction and expect the police to book the culpable to render justice. This shows extent of executive clout invading the judiciary. Even now denial at all level persists with no prospect initiative to book the culpable and render justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.
It is evident that some people work/occupy posts for receiving the benefits/perks that the post offers. A few, even use that opportunity to further their claims for even better things - like a posting after retirement. Ex CJI Balakrishnan's case is no better. Very few treat the post/position as a means to serve the society at large while upholding the principles and in a sense guarding the respect for the post/position! I cannot name any one above Lal Bahadur Sastri, our former PM in such a category!
Appalled by the state of Justice in India. High time there is a major cleansing action taken up in all branches of government. I was surprised when a leading advocate of Supreme court mentioned that more than 70% of the Chief Justices of Supreme Court were corrupt. After listening to all these as well as the Radia tapes, it makes me wonder.. Can the common man dream of getting justice in this country.. of course, he can only dream. The days when he will be able to get it seems bleak at best.
Its really sad to see the country in such a sorry state. Every institution in the country is plagued with corruption and scandals. If the people at the very top of judiciary are not doing the job entrusted on them, where else is the hope for the country. People have already lost hope on our political class, most section of the media and the executive branch of the government. And now to see judiciary too under the cloud is disheartening.
What a cheap behaviour in the face of conclusive evidence. This is the conduct of the former Dharamadevan and the present dayalu rakshakan of India! We claim to be the holiest of nations. May be holy in the number of holy places, ostentatious religious exhibitionism ets. Not in reality. We are the most corrupt in thougt, deed and action. I think we are beyond redemption. What human rights will Balakrishnan protect? The right to tell blatant lies?
Please Email the Editor