http://www.covert.co.in/appu.htm
investigation |APPU ESTHOSE SURESH WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGES? Prakash Ram, the junior *munshi* of the then Additional Advocate General of Haryana, Sanjeev Bansal, made a mistake when he delivered Rs 15 lakhs to Justice Nirmaljit Kaur on the night of 13 August 2008. The cash was reportedly meant for another sitting judge of the High Court, Justice Nirmal Yadav. This one mistake took the lid off what many in the judiciary have been speaking of: bribes and corruption. Bansal was allegedly sent by a hotelier in Delhi, Ravinder Singh Bhasin. The Chandigarh police registered a case against Prakash, Sanjeev Bansal and Ravinder Singh on 16 August under Sections 8 and 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act and 120B IPC, after receiving instructions from Senior Standing Counsel Anupam Gupta, advocate. Mr Gupta was later appointed as the special public prosecutor in the case. However, the case remained with the police only till 26 August, after which it is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The judiciary had set up an in house committee of two former Chief Justices of Gujarat and Allahabad High Courts and a senior judge from Delhi to probe the scam. Strangely enough, instead of exercising judicial restraint and waiting for the CBI report that is in "its final stages" the judges' report has been made available to a section of the media that has reported that the enquiry did not find sufficient evidence against the judges. This, lawyers said, could unduly influence the ongoing CBI enquiry and also raises the question that if the reports are conflicting, which one will prevail. This correspondent had access to the secret police report that was sent to the Punjab Governor and Administrator of Chandigarh, Gen. S.F Rodrigues. According to this report, on 20 August, Sanjeev Bansal confessed having sent the cash for Justice Nirmal Yadav on 13 August. Interestingly, just a day later on 14 August, Rajeev Gupta, a property dealer, on the behest of Bansal, delivered another Rs 15 lakhs to Justice Nirmal Yadav. Rajeev Gupta's confession statement on 21 August records this. Justice Yadav allegedly needed the gift for acquiring a property in Himachal Pradesh's Solan district. A close aide at the Governor's office told this correspondent, "The Governor, considering the sensitivity of the matter, kept the Chief Justice informed about the investigation and three reports were send to the CJ, based on which Justice Nirmal Yadav was given marching orders." On 22 August, Justice Nirmal Yadav was asked to proceed on leave. Details of telephone calls traced to Bansal record at least 15 calls between him and another senior judge, Justice M.S. Gill, from the night of 13 August, when the first suitcase of cash was delivered at the wrong address, till 16 August when the case was formally registered. Justice Gill telephoned Bansal at 9.01 p.m. and a call was returned to Justice Gill two minutes later at 9.03 p.m. The last telephone call, on 16 August at 6.35 p.m., was made just half an hour before this case was registered. Likewise, another advocate and a son of a senior judge in Supreme Court were in constant touch with Bansal during the same period. Ravinder Singh and Sanjeev Bansal made 426 calls during six and a half months between 1 February and 16 August. Jai Prakash, senior *munshi* of Sanjeev Bansal and Ravinder Singh, from a single-known number exchanged 222 calls from February to August. Jai Prakash is now absconding. An officer who was closely associated with the investigation, told *Covert*, on condition of anonymity, "This points to the fact that there was some deal which went on among them. Ravinder Singh had no case with Sanjeev Bansal. Yet he was in constant touch not only with him but also his *munshi*; and now he is absconding." Mr Anupam Gupta said, "Although I am certain that the cash was not meant for Nirmaljit Kaur, it is unfortunate that the presence of a Supreme Court judge as well as a senior High Court judge at her residence at that point of time was withheld. Also the son of a Supreme Court judge as well as a senior High Court judge was in close contact with Bansal during the next three days. The HC judge in question even tried to influence the preliminary investigation." Rupinder Singh Khosla, president, High Court Bar Association told this correspondent, "There were continuous efforts to help the accused. Had the Bar Association not taken up the matter at the right time the culprits would have gone scot-free." He pointed to an unprecedented judgment by Justice A.N Jindal on 5 September while considering the anticipatory bail of Ravinder Singh. The interim order stated, "…it is directed that if the petitioner [Ravinder Singh] choose to surrender before the Investigating Agency, his counsel shall be allowed to remain present in the premises during the interrogation and no third degree methods shall be adopted. It is also directed that the petitioner shall be got medico-legally examined at the time of his surrender and after the interrogation as well." About the order Anupam Gupta minced no words, "It amounts to wilful abuse of his powers." The pro-active High Court Bar Association intervened and passed a unanimous resolution on 11 September, which reads, "Association strongly opposes the anticipatory bail including the interim order dated 5th September passed by the High Court therein." It is believed that only on their intervention the bail application was dismissed. According to a highly placed source in the Chandigarh administration, "Our boys were doing a good job as far as the investigation is concerned and they were increasingly coming under pressure from the judiciary and thus the decision was taken to hand over the case to CBI." Rupinder Singh Khosla told *Covert*, "Eighty per cent of the case was solved by the Chandigarh police in ten days, I wonder why the case was transferred to CBI." Another informed source said, "It was on the request of the Chief Justice to the Lieutenant Governor that the case was transferred." Rajinder Sachar, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court told *Covert*, "The judicial fraternity is upset about the incident and I am sure stern action will be taken against the defaulters." In order to deal with similar cases he suggested, "There should be a judicial commission that includes lawyers, a few eminent personalities from various fields, Opposition Leader, the Speaker and the Prime Minister — but it should be an external one rather than an internal mechanism." Former Chief Justice of India, J.S. Verma said, "Legislation on judicial accountability based on the resolutions passed by the Supreme Court is needed to check the erosion of people's trust in the judiciary and to effectively probe charges of judicial corruption" [¼] -- Bobby Kunhu http://community.eldis.org/myshkin/Blog/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
