Minister didn't speak to Regupathi, says report

Following is the full text of the report, dated August 8, 2009, given by the then Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, H.L. Gokhale, to the former Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan:

“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. Regupathi 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 July 2, 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.

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 dialled the number to facilitate the conversation.'

The second paragraph of the letter of Honourable Mr. Justice Regupathi 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.

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 July 2, 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,

H.L. Gokhale. ”