*And who will judge the judging judges? *--chandra kumar On 1/10/09, bobby. kunhu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
