raviforjustice: JUDICIAL PERFIDIES-7

I had concluded Judicial Perfidies-6 by listing some suggestions I had submitted to the then President of India and the Prime Minister, in 2005, through an online petition, to constitute a National Judicial Commission to try and punish guilty judges as per laws applicable to ordinary citizens. Incidentally, 2005 had been declared the Year of excellence in Indian Judiciary by the then Chief Justice of India.

But, in 2014 itself, I had sent a letter to the Chief Justice of Kerala on the subject of ‘Reforming our Justice Delivery System’. It dealt with the following issues:

> Contempt of Court Act – anathema to the very concept of democracy.

> Judicial accountability and the National Judicial Commission.

> Judicial Accessibility

>The Judicial process.

- Listing of cases.

- Personal appearance of litigants/representatives.

- Involvement of advocates.

> Citizens’ charter and working hours.

> Grading of advocates and establishing norms for fees.

> Irrationality and unfairness of decisions.

On Judicial accountability and the National Judicial Commission, I had written:

A former CJI is on record that 20% judges are corrupt. Another CJI moaned that there is pressure on the Hawala Bench. Yet another one expressed helplessness in tackling an instance of mass leave by high court judges. Some CJsI, after demitting office, have even gone abroad and advised foreign governments to avoid taking issues to Indian courts since the delays are preposterous. One CJI, shortly after retiring, came to Kerala and passed some comments which, had it been made by anybody else, would have landed him/her behind bars for contempt of court. Then of course there are the Mysore, Rajasthan and Delhi cases reportedly involving the judges of the high courts there. Suffice to say that the need for a National Judicial Commission to try judges has been amply established. When even the President of India has asked his office to be brought under the purview of the Lok Ayukt (sic, Lokpal), it is disconcerting that the judiciary has not responded positively to this need of ensuring transparency in its functions and integrity of conduct of its members.

This was followed by a one man protest in front of the high court to take the message to the people at large, the real sovereign entities in the democracy. (The Constitution Review Commission had unequivocally stated, if at all such an affirmation was required, that the highest office in a democracy is that of the citizen.) Unfortunately the media failed to cover the issues that was sought to be discussed by the citizens at large. But, why? The answer lies in the fear of the media to report issues that project the judiciary in poor, though real, light.

The Mysore Sex Scandal hit the headlines in 2002. It was reported that 3 judges of the Karnataka High Court were found in a Mysore resort with some women who were from lower rungs of the same fraternity (‘Sex scam: Govt seeks report from Mysore police chief’, Nov 9, 2002; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/sex-scam-govt-seeks-report-from-mysore-police-chief/articleshow/27794260.cms) Based on the report by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, the Chief Justice of India constituted a committee of 2 sitting Chief Justices of High Courts and another high court judge to probe the matter. Not unexpectedly, the committee gave a clean chit to the judges.

But the media reports also did bring out certain facts like there were 5 judges in Mysore during that time, one had gone to his village to meet relations and another had gone to meet colleagues to invite them for a function. The judges had not informed the court or the police of their move outside their place of work, which was required as per rules.

At a meeting of about 600 lawyers, one of them had suggested that the three judges should not be allowed to sit on the bench till the Supreme Court-constituted inquiry committee completes its investigation. This was followed by violence during which journalists covering the event were roughed up and the matter had been reported to the police.

The State Women’s Commission had sought a report from the police. Later, Adv Indira Jaisingh had petitioned the apex court to release the judges’ committee report in public. The outcome is not known.

The last I remember of this episode is that there was a report that the journalists/media houses were hauled up for contempt of court for conspiring and publishing reports to diminish the image of the judiciary.

After all the sound and fury, everything had died down.

But Shameet Mukherjee, acting judge of Delhi High Court was not so lucky. At the first hint of the DDA scam, when some of his official papers had been found with an accused, he resigned quoting personal reasons. And once he had resigned, it was easy to get permission for prosecuting him. He was arrested, remanded and granted bail for one month after one week. His attempt to withdraw his resignation subsequently was not successful as the then President, Dr Abdul Kalam, had promptly accepted it and it became final.

And that was the last that was heard of this scandal.

These events had even led the Bar Council of India to demand that the provision for impeachment of judges of the higher courts must be done away with and replaced with a suitable mechanism whereby judges accused of corruption can be tried and punished if found guilty. Its chairman had added "Since impeachment of judges is a cumbersome process it has lost its relevance" and "High courts have the power to punish lower court judges if they indulge in corruption. As far as we are concerned, high court and Supreme Court judges must not have immunity if they violate the law." (‘Punish erring judges, says Bar Council’, May 05, 2003; https://www.rediff.com/news/2003/may/05bar.htm)

But nothing has moved forward. If any, things have only gone from bad to worse.

Adv Prashant Bhushan had alleged that 8 of the 16 Chief Justices of India had been corrupt. He had put up their list along with his justification in public domain too. But instead of any inquiry or prosecution what we have is a contempt of court case pending against him (the messenger? Or, whistle blower?) since 2009.

And there are other cases that made it to head lines of newspapers too.

A cash packet of Rs. 15 Lakhs was delivered to Judge Nirmal jit Kaur, of Punjab and Haryana High Court. She reported the matter to the police and it was revealed that the cash was for Judge Nirmal Yadav (having same first name.) Three independent enquiries by local police, CBI and in-house judges’ panel concluded that charges of corruption are valid prima facie against Nirmal Yadav. The case seems to have been buried and closed (HT 18/01/2010) and Yadav was posted to Uttarakhand High Court. Law Ministry refused to disclose information on the recommendations by CJI, says a power point presentation by Mission Justice, Mumbai.

A M Bhattacharjee, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court had to resign in 1995 after allegedly receiving US$ 800,000 as royalty.

Aurn Madan, judge of Rajasthan HC had to resign in 2003 after being indicted by a committee of judges for corruption. There was also an allegation of sexual harassment of a woman doctor.

In what is popularly known as the Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam, involving Rs 7 Crores, there were allegations against thirty six judges, including one sitting Supreme Court judge, 11 judges of Allahabad and Uttarakhand High Courts and 24 District Court judges. A report dated 28 November 2013 in Times of India informed readers that a CBI court had framed charge sheets against 6 retired judges, including 3 from high courts. Another report, dated 05 October 2015 in Economic Times, stated that They(approvers) alleged that the judicial process was being subverted by recording partial statements and that they were being forced to depose only against retired and not sitting judges. The Central Bureau of Investigation was also not producing all the evidence seized in the case, they said through lawyer Prashant Bhushan. And there it rests till date.

Another interesting case reported in the media was of a court in Gujarat issuing non-bail able warrants against the then President Dr Abdul Kalam and the then Chief Justice of India, in a sting operation. There was a flurry of activities like suspending the judge, confiscating the documents, inquiry etc. But the last report on the subject was that the judge was exonerated because he has to sign many documents in the course of his duties and he cannot be held responsible for such mistakes. It was also reported that the journalists who carried out the sting operation and the media that published the report were being prosecuted for contempt of court, the outcome of which is still awaited.

There was also this case of a judge of a Mumbai High Court seeking the help of the underworld to get the tenants evicted from his personal property. The police had stumbled on the telephone conversation between the judge and an underworld don while investigating some other case. The usual inquiries followed, including forensic test of the recorded conversation but the judge was exonerated on the statement of his Personal/Confidential Assistant that the judge’s voice could not be recognized.

In Judicial Perfidies 5, I had quoted Binod Kumar Roy, then Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court, who had issued an administrative order identifying 12 judges of his court who had relations practicing as advocates practicing in the same court and barring these advocates from appearing before any of them. While the Bar Council rules forbade advocates related to judges from appearing before those (related) judges, Roy’s order extended the scope by barring all relations of all the 12 judges from appearing before anyone of them.

To illustrate this further, let us say A and B are two judges of a court. X is the son of A and Y the daughter of B, both advocates, practicing in the same court. While Bar Council rules barred X from appearing before A and Y from appearing before B, there was no bar on X appearing before B and Y appearing before A. This is popularly known as uncle judge syndrome in legal circles. It was a scourge in the judiciary. Advocates who did not have uncle judges were certainly at a disadvantage. The scope for corruption in such a situation can well be imagined. What Roy’s order did was to break this unethical nexus.

K G Balakrishnan, who had been the Chief Justice of Gujarat /Tamil Nadu High Courts between July 1998 and June 2000 and Chief Justice of India from January 2007 to May 2010, had invited allegations when his family members had reportedly failed to disclose crores of rupees in their Income Tax Returns. They had reportedly paid the dues with penalty and closed the cases. Some salient points from these reports are:

For Adv P V Sreenijin, his son in law, the income shown in the Return of Income, income assessed for tax, tax with penalty paid and the year are as follows:

26.61 lakhs, 1.64 cr, -, 2009-10;

47.47 lakhs, 2.11 cr, -, 2010-11;

22.06 lakhs, 1.04 cr, 1.02 Cr, 2011-12(?)

For M J Benny, another son in law, it was 28.94 lakhs, 1.79 cr, 97.73 lakhs for 2010-11.

For his daughter, Soni, it was 38.69 lakhs, 1.67 cr, 38.74 lakhs for 2010-11.

The reports are available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/former-cji-k-g-balakrishnans-relatives-hid-crores-of-income-reveals-i-t-probe/articleshow/57162253.cms and https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ex-cjis-balakrishnans-son-in-law-pv-sreenijan-resigns-from-youth-congress-444080.

Those who would prefer to dismiss it as routine things should peruse the data of his son-in-law, P V Sreenijin, who is currently a CPI(M) MLA in Kerala, at https://myneta.info/Kerala2021/candidate.php?candidate_id=169.

The tip of the ice berg shows that Adv P V Srinijin and his spouse, another advocate practicing in the Kerala High Court, have between them almost Rs 12 crores of assets, none of them inherited and their sources of income is from their legal profession only.

Some interesting details are: 113 acres of agricultural land purchased in 2013 for Rs 15 lakhs, currently valued at Rs 1.2 cr (800 percent appreciation in cost in 8 years), another 54.53 acres of agricultural land purchased in 2008 for 3.4 lakhs, currently valued at Rs 2.65 cr, non-agricultural land, 3.29 acres, purchased in 2015 for Rs 97 lakhs, currently valued at 1.26 cr, commercial properties purchased in ???? for Rs ???? but development cost of Rs 24 lakhs, currently valued at 62 lakhs and residential buildings at two locations, one purchased in ???? for Rs ???? but development cost of Rs 26 lakhs currently valued at 52 lakhs and the other purchased in 2009 for Rs 17 lakhs, development cost of Rs 20 lakhs currently valued at Rs 2.11 cr.

His wife has non-agricultural land, 11.79 acres, purchased in 2005 for Rs 3.36 lakhs, currently valued at Rs 70 lakhs, commercial properties purchased in 2007 for Rs 15 lakhs currently valued at Rs 53 lakhs and a residential building purchased in 2009 for Rs 17 lakhs and development cost of Rs 28 lakhs currently valued at Rs 2.11 cr.