THE FREEMEN
Dear Brethren,
Common
sense demands that the highest chairs must have
the soundest legs. By that measure, judges ought to have most impeccable moral
character. But in India, judges are protected less by their sterling
reputations than by an arcane law: the “contempt of court” act, which prohibits
raising any questions about judges or their actions. This has reduced talk of
judicial corruption to a sullen whisper rather than a democratic debate.
Following is part of Public Record;
Shri Prashant Bhushan recently submitted a supplementary affidavit in the
Supreme Court of India where he has submitted evidence to back his allegations
that “half of the last 16 Chief Justices have been corrupt.”
Prashant
Bhushan has stated that getting documentary evidence of corruption in the
higher judiciary is difficult. Despite this, his historic affidavit throws
light on blatant corruption in the top echelons of the Indian judiciary.
The
affidavit also lists instances of how impeachment motion could not be brought
against some CJIs. The reason, Bhushan states, is the reluctance of MPs to sign
an impeachment motion against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting
Chief Justice of a High Court (despite documentary evidence of serious charges
of misconduct). This is because of a fear of judicial backlash against the MP
or his political party, most of whom have cases pending in the courts.
The
excerpts from Prashant Bhushan’s affidavit are reproduced below.
Justice
Rangnath Mishra (Tenure: September
25, 1990 – November 24, 1991)
Chief
Justice Rangnath Mishra as a judge of the Supreme Court presided over a
Commission of Inquiry on the genocide of Sikhs in 1984.
He
conducted the inquiry proceedings in a highly biased manner and went on to give
a clean chit to the Congress party, despite there being considerable evidence
implicating senior leaders of the Congress party.
The
evidence against the Congress leaders and party has come out in subsequent
official inquiry reports as well as in the subsequent CBI investigations.
He went on,
after his retirement, to agree to become a Rajya Sabha MP of the Congress. Such
actions, to my mind, clearly smack of corruption. Corruption, as I have
mentioned earlier, is not used in a narrow sense of taking bribe alone, but in
a wider sense of being morally culpable or blameworthy.
Justice K N
Singh (Tenure: November 25,
1991 – December 12, 1991)
Chief
Justice K N Singh who followed Justice Rangnath Mishra, passed a series of
unusually benevolent orders in favour of Jain Exports, and its sister concern
Jain Shudh Vanaspati.
Several of
these were passed during his 18 day tenure as Chief Justice, and many of these
cases were ordered to be listed before him by oral mentioning.
This became
such a talked about scandal in the corridors of the Court that eventually in a
hearing on 9th December 1991, the counsel for the Union of India was forced to
object to the manner in which the cases came to be listed before Justice K N
Singh’s bench. He was forced to give a labored explanation about how and why he
ordered the matter to be listed before him when it was before another bench.
All these
judgments came to be reviewed and reversed later by a series of subsequent
benches, in some of which, the review petitions were heard in open court, in a
departure from the normal procedure.
On 1 April
1991 and 9 September 1991, Justice KN Singh allowed two Civil Appeals of Jain
Exports regarding the import of caustic soda and reduced the import duty payable
by the company from 92 percent to 10 percent. Both these orders were
subsequently reviewed and set aside.
On 28
November 1991, (during his 18 day tenure as CJI) Justice Singh dismissed the
appeal of Union of India against Jain Shudh Vanaspati in a case involving the
import of edible oil in stainless steel containers (the import of which was
banned), which were fraudulently painted over to disguise them as mild steel
containers. This order was reviewed and set aside on 16 July 1993 by a bench of
Justice JS Verma and PB Sawant.
All these
orders of Justice KN Singh in the Jain Exports and Jain Shudh Vanaspati cases
were widely understood and regarded as having been passed for corrupt
considerations. They became a much talked about scandal in the Court, even
while he was Chief Justice.
Justice A M
Ahmadi (Tenure: October 25,
1994 – March 24, 1997)
Chief
Justice A M Ahmadi who succeeded Justice Venkatachalaiah (who was widely
respected and regarded as a judge of great integrity), went on to quash the charge
of culpable homicide in the criminal case arising out of the Bhopal Gas leak.
Seven
benches were changed during the hearing of this case, the only common judge in
all these benches was Justice Ahmadi who was Chief Justice and constituting the
benches.
This
judgment of quashing the charge of culpable homicide before the trial, not only
delayed the trial, but led to such miscarriage of justice, that the Supreme
Court has thought it fit to issue notice on a curative petition filed by the
CBI even 14 years after that judgment.
Justice
Ahmadi then went on to deal with and pass several orders in the Union Carbide
case involving the setting up of a hospital from the sale proceeds of Union
Carbide India Limited’s shares held by Union Carbide Corporation, USA.
In fact, he
passed the orders releasing the amount of Rs. 187 crore for the construction of
the hospital from the attached funds of Union Carbide. Quite remarkably, after
having dealt with these cases of Union Carbide, Justice Ahmadi (soon after his
retirement) went on to become the lifetime Chairman of the same hospital trust
whose case he had extensively dealt with as Chief Justice.
A Supreme
Court bench headed by Justice Kuldip Singh had, on 10 May 1996, passed an order
staying all construction within 5 km of Badkal and Surajkund lakes in Faridabad
for environmental reasons. This order prevented any construction in plots in a
development called Kant Enclave, which is adjoining Surajkund lake and on land
which had been notified as Forest Land under S4 of the Punjab Land Preservation
Act.
Being
forest land, no construction was permissible on this land without the prior
permission of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, and also without
the permission of the Supreme Court by virtue of the orders of the Court in the
Godavarman case.
Despite
this, however, Justice Ahmadi, who was as this time the Chief Justice of the
Court, went on to purchase plots in this development around this time and also
went on thereafter to construct one of the first houses on this (a palatial
house where he has lived since his retirement) in violation of the orders of
the Court and the Forest Conservation Act.
Soon after
the original order of Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice Ahmadi as Chief Justice set
about reconstituting these benches and urgently listing review petitions filed
by Kant Enclave and others against these orders, where these orders came to be
successively modified.
The order
prohibiting construction within 5 km of the lakes was modified to 1 km by the
order dated 11 October 1996. This order was further modified in the review
petitions filed by Kant Enclave and others by order dated 17 March 1997, to
obviate the need to no-objection certificates from the Pollution Control Boards
for construction. This was further modified by even allowing construction even
within 1 km of Surajkund lake by an order dated 13 April 1998 by a bench headed
by the then Chief Justice MM Punchhi.
The fact
that the construction of Justice Ahmadi’s house in Kant Enclave is completely
illegal and in violation of the Supreme Court’s judgments, as well as the
Forest Conservation Act, has now been emphatically stated by the Supreme Court
itself in its order dated 14 May 2008 on the clarification application on
behalf of Kant Enclave.
The
Centrally Empowered Committee of the Court has found the violations of those
who constructed their houses in Kant Enclave so egregious, that they have
recommended the demolition of these constructions which includes that of
Justice Ahmadi in their report dated 13 January 2009. I regard Justice Ahmadi’s
actions in all this as morally culpable and indeed corrupt. They had become a
much talked about scandal in the corridors of the court as well as among judges
at that time.
Justice M M
Punchhi (Tenure: January 18,
1998 – October 9, 1998)
The
Committee on Judicial Accountability had prepared an impeachment motion against
Justice M M Punchhi, which had been signed by more than 25 members of the Rajya
Sabha. The motion did not get the requisite number of signatures since he went
on to become Chief Justice of India.
The six
extremely serious charges in the impeachment motion against Justice Punchhi are
detailed below:
1. That as
a Judge of the Supreme Court, while deciding an appeal of Shri K N Tapuria
against a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 10.12.93 by which he was
sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, Justice Punchhi allowed the
Appeal and acquitted Shri Tapuria on the basis of a purported compromise
entered into between Shri Tapuria and the alleged representative of M/s Turner
Morrison & Co., and thereby remitted his prison sentence. This was done
despite the fact that the offense of criminal breach of trust for which Shri
Tapuria had been convicted cannot be compounded in law and thus could not have
been allowed to be compromised by the complainant. In fact, the order
acquitting Shri Tapuria dated 25.4.95 passed by Justice Punchhi was on
extraneous considerations.
2. That as
a Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Punchhi heard and
dismissed a Writ Petition of the Vice Chancellor of the Rohtak University, Dr.
Ram Gopal containing serious allegations of malafides against the then Chief
Minister of Haryana Shri Bhajan Lal. That while he decided this case dismissing
allegations against Shri Bhajan Lal, two of his unmarried daughters residing
with him, Ms. Madhu and Ms. Priya, applied for and got allotment of two
valuable house plots in Gurgaon from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister,
Shri Bhajan Lal. The plots were allotted on 1.5.86, the same day Justice
Punchhi dismissed Shri Ram Gopal’s Writ Petition against Shri Bhajan Lal. The
judgment of Justice Punchhi dismissing the Writ Petition was obviously given on
extraneous considerations.
3. That as
Inspecting Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice Punchhi made
an adverse inspection report questioning his integrity, against Shri K.S.
Bhullar, Sub-Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of Punjab, for the reason that Shri
Bhullar had refused to decide a case before him involving Justice Punchhi’s
co-brother in his favor.
4. That as
a Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Punchhi attempted to hear and decide a
case involving the validity of section 8 (a) of the Capital of Punjab (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1952 though he was personally interested in the outcome of
the case.
5. That
Justice Punchhi attempted to browbeat officials of the Registry of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court when they came to take inventory of items of furniture
at the residence of the then Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court, Justice V. Ramaswami. He ordered them to mention in the inventory report
that all the items had been found in order even when these had not been
verified and this was not true. Thereafter, when this matter became subject of
the impeachment proceedings was put in issue in Writ Petitions filed in the
Supreme Court, Justice Punchhi attempted to hear and decide that case, though
in view of his role in the matter, he was clearly disentitled from doing so.
6. That as
Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Punchhi, kept pending with him a
matrimonial proceeding involving one Ashok and Rupa Hurra from Gujarat, even
after it had become infructuous. The matter was kept pending in order that a
fresh Petition to be filed by the husband also come before him. These
proceedings were finally decided by him for extraneous considerations in a
manner which was contrary to law.
Justice Dr.
A S Anand (Tenure: October
10, 1998 – November 1, 2001)
During his
tenure, evidence of several acts of very serious misconduct came to light and
came to the possession of the Committee on Judicial Accountability. As a result
of this, an impeachment motion was also prepared by the Committee on Judicial
Accountability against Justice Anand which contained four serious charges which
are detailed below:
1. That AS
Anand, when he was the Chief Justice of the High Court at J&K, heard and
passed favourable interim orders in the case of one Krishan Kumar Amla, soon after
he had accepted gratification from Amla in the form of a 2 Kanal plot of land
at Ganderbal, Srinagar. That Shri Anand accepted this gratification from Amla
even though he had been as a judge hearing and dealing with the cases of the
companies owned by Krishan Amla and his father Tirath Ram Amla. These acts
constitute gross misconduct and misbehavior on the part of a Judge.
2. That AS
Anand abused his office and influence as a judge and Chief Justice of the
J&K High Court to hold on to the ownership of agricultural land which
should have been vested in the government under the J&K Agrarian Reforms
Act of 1976.
3. That AS
Anand while he was a judge of the Supreme Court abetted his wife and
mother-in-law in filing a suit based on false averments in a civil court in
Madhya Pradesh. During the proceedings before the civil court, he abused his
influence and authority to get the revenue authorities to suppress from the
trial court the record of the proceedings before the revenue court. That he
subsequently used his influence to get the State Government of MP to withdraw
the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against his wife.
4. That
Anand abused his office and influence as Chief Justice of the J&K High Court
to get from the government of J&K a 2-kanal plot of land at Gandhinagar in
Jammu for a price which was a small fraction of the market price. That in doing
so, he gave a false and misleading affidavit that he owned no land or immovable
property in Jammu.
Despite the
fact that there was documentary evidence of serious charges of corruption
against Justice Anand it was not possible to get the impeachment motion signed
by the requisite number of MPs against a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court. MPs are very reluctant to sign an impeachment motion against a sitting
judge of the Supreme Court or a sitting Chief Justice of a High Court, even if
one has documentary evidence of serious charges of misconduct against the judge
concerned. This is because of a fear of judicial backlash against the MP or his
political party, most of whom have cases pending in the courts.
Justice Y K
Sabharwal (Tenure: November 1,
2005 – January 14, 2007)
ON 3 AUGUST
2007, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability had issued a press release
detailing several serious charges against Chief Justice YK Sabharwal.
The most
serious among the charges against Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal was that he
passed a series of orders for sealing commercial properties in Delhi which were
operating in residential areas. The immediate consequence of his orders was to
force shops and offices to shift to shopping malls and commercial complexes
being constructed by builders and developers, which resulted in increasing
their prices enormously almost overnight.
At
precisely the time when Justice Sabharwal passed these orders of sealing, his
sons entered into partnerships with some of the largest shopping mall and
commercial complex developers and thus made huge profits by virtue of his
orders. Moreover, the registered offices of his sons’ companies were at the
official residence of Justice Sabharwal at this time.
Apart from
this, Justice Sabharwal’s sons were allotted huge commercial plots by the
Mulayam Singh government of Uttar Pradesh in Noida at highly concessional
rates, at a time when Justice Sabharwal was dealing with the case of Amar
Singh’s tapes, the publication of which he had stayed.
As a result
of these transactions, the sons of Justice Sabharwal, who till he started
dealing with the sealing case, were small traders having a turnover of less
than Rs 2 crores went on to purchase a property of Rs 15.43 crores in Maharani
Bagh in March 2007 and more recently a property at 7 Sikandra Road for Rs 122
crores (in partnership with their builder friends) in April 2010.
The
property at Sikandra Road was purchased by Justice Sabharwal’s sons for Rs.122
crore with the help of a number of unconscionable judicial orders of single
judges of the Delhi High Court, at a time when the property was worth well over
Rs.150 crore.
Despite
complaints to the CBI and the CVC, however, no FIR appears to have been
registered nor any investigation done by the CBI.
Read More:
Prashant Bhushan’s Affidavit in SC (December 2009)
Shanti Bhushan’s Affidavit in SC (September 2010)
Prashant Bhushan’s Supplementary Affidavit in SC (September 2010)
Shanti Bhushan’s Affidavit in SC (September 2010)
Prashant Bhushan’s Supplementary Affidavit in SC (September 2010)
Jest a while brother;-
After
reading above, if you think that our judges only do favors to their own or
where they have been hired by outsiders, then you are not right:
here is a
story to change your mind;-
One
afternoon a Judge was riding in his official Limousine car when he saw two men
along roadside eating grass.
Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. He asked one man "Why are you eating grass?"
"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. "We have to eat grass." "Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you", the Judge said.
"But sir, I have a wife and two children with me.
They are over there, under that tree". "Bring them along," the Judge replied. Turning to the other poor man he stated, "You come with us also."
The second man, in a pitiful voice then said, "But sir, I also have a wife
and SIX children with me!" "Bring them all, as well," the Judge answered.
Disturbed, he ordered his driver to stop and he got out to investigate. He asked one man "Why are you eating grass?"
"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied. "We have to eat grass." "Well, then, you can come with me to my house and I'll feed you", the Judge said.
"But sir, I have a wife and two children with me.
They are over there, under that tree". "Bring them along," the Judge replied. Turning to the other poor man he stated, "You come with us also."
The second man, in a pitiful voice then said, "But sir, I also have a wife
and SIX children with me!" "Bring them all, as well," the Judge answered.
They all entered the car, which was no easy task, even for a car as large
as the Judge’s Limousine was. Once underway, one of the poor fellows turned to the Judge and said, "Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with you."
The Judge replied, "Glad to do it. You'll really love my private House; the grass is almost 1 meter high!"
Kapil Dev
Aggarwal
